Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elderly Martial Arts Master

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --JAranda | yeah 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elderly Martial Arts Master

It's a well-intentioned article, but clearly original research of the worst sort. Superm401 | Talk 22:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.Keep per below. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Shauri 00:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, how do you figure it's original research? It basically a list of elderly martial artist masters. I don't see anything wrong with it.--Azathar 02:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Create article on Film Cliches or Movie Cliches to merge this with. Then when that gets unwieldy, it can be a subpage. However, it is verifiable and not original research.WCFrancis 03:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There are 64 articles currently in the category of Stock Characters. My suggested Movie Cliches article is already way too unwieldy, even before being created. WCFrancis 03:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, incredibly prevalent stock character. Kappa 23:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I have to admit a certain bias since I started this article some time ago. However I think the Elderly Martial Arts Master is a well-recognized cliché to anyone with at least a passing familiarity with bad martial arts movies. Secondly, I don't see how this article is substantially different from other minor Stock characters such as the whiz kid or a Redshirt (science fiction), neither of which are targeted for deletion. Martin-C 01:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair | Talk 08:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Ghetteaux nothing wrong with this article.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.