Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of comedy movie 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 12:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

List of comedy movie 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 20:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or transfer to wikibooks or wikisource. Very interesting list which should be available somewhere, if not on Wikipedia.Hektor 20:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * delete this and similar lists. Phiwum 06:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom. Fluit 07:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. List is useful. Riki 12:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki &mdash; RJH 15:43, 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 04:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all cliches.  Grue   14:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or transwiki to Wikisource. Not encyclopaedic material, and currently a poorly-defined list with POV criteria for inclusion. Notability also questionable. See WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be a bad faith nomination as cliches are generally notable. - CNichols 19:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I prefer to assume good faith. The nominator has provided a rational basis for his or her nomination. None of these lists provide any objective criteria as to what does and does not belong on the list. There is clearly a POV element and it is a reasonable to assert that the article smacks of original research. On the contrary, I see no reason why all clichés are notable. Saying it is so does not make it so. There may also be valid reasons to keep the entry; however, there is no need to disparage the nominator. Fluit 20:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but requires cleanup and addition of references. Crystallina 22:03, 18 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.