- 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was Delete. - Bobet 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
useless page, about nothing in reality. Vague concept ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: no Wikipedia:Deletion policy compliant justification has been given for this nomination. Nominator: please state specific reasons and justifications for this AfD nomination. Georgewilliamherbert 09:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not useless, it is an exploration of an archetypal character. However, I have concerns about original research, so no vote. — Reinyday, 04:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or make a page for fat husband of a skinny wife... how about neurotic detective? That random ensign that always gets killed in Star Trek? This article isn't about anything, isn't well referenced, isn't linked from anywhere, and shouldn't be here. Opabinia regalis 04:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for completeness' sake, I also listed the companion article Cop on the edge, despite a somewhat weaker case for deletion. Opabinia regalis 05:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually Opabinia regalis we already have the That random ensign that always gets killed in Star Trek. BJK 22:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete, it seems very true that such a stock character does exists, anyone who spent a few hours with The Wire would attest to that, but it doesn't cite sources, nor could I find any in a pinch (ie. Google). Actually, I got about 15 hits for "a good cop" + archetype... which isn't enough to pass WP:NEO to me. If there is an actual academic film criticism essay out there for this archetype, and if I had some money to burn I'd bet there is one, then by all means turn this vote to a strong keep. But until then it's a WP:OR violation. hateless 04:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR. I'm having flashbacks to the article which wanted to list all movie clichés... Tychocat 09:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Both per Tychocat. --DaveG12345 10:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to One Good Cop without prejudice to recreation IF some verifiable sources are attatched. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - per young american. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR -- Alias Flood 16:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete because we have Red Shirt so no reason not to have this but the whole page does strike me as violating WP:OR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whispering (talk • contribs)
- Delete. Original research. In present form does not meet the verifiability standards as no sources are cited; in particular, there is no evidence is presented to show that "one good cop" is a well-known name for a widely-recognized archetype. Hey, what about Frank Serpico, in real life and in cinema? Oh, the temptation posed by lists... Dpbsmith (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.