Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just-in-time lad

Just-in-time lad

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was already declined as a Speedy Delete, but was suggested to be sent here. The article is seemingly in violation of WP:OR. In addition, actually searching for any reference to this supposed archetype gives no results, making it likely that this also falls under WP:HOAX. Rorshacma (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better than "inappropriate pages". You're making real progress. Keep on the same way. – George Serdechny 17:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an original term, and we're not TV Tropes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We're here not to discuss the terms (for terms see WP:MOVE). Discuss the subject instead. – George Serdechny 20:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, let me clarify. This is an originally created term, and therefore constitutes Original research and analysis. No matter what term is used as a title for the article, it's been produced as an original synthesis to claim that these are stock archetypes. We would need to reference sources that talk about the stock character directly, which this article doesn't do, and as described above, don't seem to exist. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete as prohibited original research. The one cited text currently on the article does discuss the general concept of character archetypes (see page 49) but makes no mention of this particular alleged archetype. In fact, no example in the text comes anywhere close to this level of detail or specificity. Google turns up nothing on any of the alleged names except a few false positives, primarily re-quotes from a single piece of Lord-of-the-Rings fan-fiction. Rossami (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seriously lacking in sources. Possible hoax or OR. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]