Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action hero

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 was keep. No one proposing deletion aside from the nominator. Editors have offered multiple sources addressing the topic of "action hero". Article will benefit from expansion. (non-admin closure) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Action hero

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

Dicdef. No way to expand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK 2.5 "nominations which are so erroneous...". It is blatantly obvious that that topic can be expanded because numerous books have been written about action heroes, including:

The action hero in popular Hollywood and Hong Kong movies
Man-of-action heroes: how the American ideology of manhood structures men's consumption
Gender schema theory and the tough female action-hero
Super bitches and action babes: the female hero in popular cinema
The female action hero in film
Cartooning action heroes
The Action Hero Handbook
The Real Action Hero Manual
Female action heroes: a guide to women in comics, video games, film, and television
Television in Transition: The Life and Afterlife of the Narrative Action Hero

Warden (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though I don't know about a speedy. It seems clear to me this is a notable concept, though, however stubby the current article is. Powers ^T 02:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty can be done to improve this article. Notability does not seem to be an issue. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep — per warden. esp note this search from warden's item 10. it is clear that this is a rich concept and should be kept. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appropriate high-level topic that can encompass various forms of media (and basically not being limited to action film). Google Scholar Search shows this for example. Here is something for television. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even notice my own results listed among Warden's. The ones I mentioned were non-film on purpose since the term can be tied to action films. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good-faith nom, just wrong. Keep - much can be written on the topic. Please try again, 10-lb. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - See this for starters. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2011 (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.