Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who clichés


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who clichés

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - for all the same reasons the similar articles on video game plot clichés, video game item clichés, animation clichés, comic book clichés, stand up comedy clichés and even the list of clichés were deleted. Otto4711 02:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That article is so stupid... get it? It's a cliche! Oh, never mind . Delete. YechielMan 04:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm a Doctor Who buff and I don't think it's 'stupid'. Maybe rename it to recurring themes or situations or something.  I don't see the grounds for deletion especially as the nominator can't be bothered to tell me what they are, as opposed to pointing out that 'other crap doesn't exist'. It's not an indiscriminate list of information, it points out recurring story ideas and plot devices which are used in the same way in otherwise very different stories over a long span of time.  It can be expanded and improved but why should it be deleted?  Nick mallory 05:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NOR, fails WP:NPOV, unsourced. --Folantin 07:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, even for a cliche list this is weak. A lot of these are common fictional tropes that are in no way specific to Doctor Who.-- Nydas (Talk) 11:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced, probably can't be sourced to secondary sources to prove notability/that anyone else has considered that these are clichés. Moreschi Talk 12:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced, OR, and seems generally unencyclopedic anyway.  Ark yan  • (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. I'm a Doctor Who buff and I do think it's impermissible.  Chockfull of speculation, POV, original research and a good bit of nonsense as well.  Corridors in set design?  1960s female characters screaming?  The good guys get framed as part of the plot?  Using the customary widgets to solve plots?  Sheesh.  What shows don't?    Ravenswing  16:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Yet Another Cliché List. JuJube 18:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a list of information that fails WP:NOR. Acalamari 18:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's an overall useless list of little importance, and these are used in all shows. It's also unsourced, and unencylopedic. Patar knight 21:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * EXTERMINATE, EXTERMINATE: Just a huge pile of OR, and such a stretch much of it is: Female characters who scream, references to previous episodes. Andrew Levine 01:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|20px]] Delete per WP:OR Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 18:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as rather hopelessly original research ... I'm certain one or two of these could be attributed to a source, but a few clichés does not an article make. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 09:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.