Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of advertising 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 of the debate was Keep. Xoloz 02:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

List of advertising clichés
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, such as a list of supposedly clichéd plot elements and archetypes. Furthermore, the contention that each member of this list has become clichéd is POV, and contains large elements of original research. NatusRoma | Talk 20:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or transfer to wikibooks or wikisource. Very interesting list which should be available somewhere, if not on Wikipedia.Hektor 20:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most of the list is crap (ie, "African Americans characters' hair will invariably resemble a mop or a sea urchin" -- huh? what?) but there are some genuine cliches in there and God knows there's plenty of cliches in advertising. In college, they called them "reoccurring themes" and I had a few classes revolving around them (yay for communications majors). There's a long series of Lists of ____ cliches articles, advertising is one area just as valid as any other, and I think I would need an argument against the whole series before I can vote for delete. hateless 05:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this list and you get not one, not two, but a whole load of advertising clichés! It lists! It compends! It alphabeticises! But wait, there's more! No only that, but we throw in - for free! - links to other similar pages. What a bargain! And if you keep before the end of this AFD, you get to see this list on its very own handy-dandy Wikipedia page! Yes, that's right, all this - a list, a page, links - all for the low, low price of one keep vote! The lines are open, keep now! Grutness...wha?  06:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom. Fluit 07:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki &mdash; RJH 15:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki. I fail to see how this list is both encyclopedic and verifiable? —Ruud 23:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. (No other option makes sense.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep article could prove useful with a little work and consensus. Cliche's are notable. --The_stuart 04:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per me and everyone else.  Grue   14:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Grutness. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be a bad faith nomination as cliches are generally notable. - CNichols 18:56, 16 May 2006 (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.