Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of comic book 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 12:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

List of comic book 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 20:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom. Otherwise, this is some new meaning of the word "interesting" I haven't yet seen on the wiktionary. Fluit 07:18, 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 23:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. (No other option makes sense.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:59, 15 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 per me and everyone else.  Grue   14:27, 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) 15:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be a bad faith nomination as cliches are generally notable. - CNichols 18:57, 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 20:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as inherently POV topic and title. See how the article cliché clearly states the decision to classify anything as "cliché" is POV. This also appears to be completely original research. LjL 20:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting...By extending that logic, it's impossible to provide any example of a cliché that's still NPOV, meaning the article cliché fails WP:V because there are no sources that can be quoted to demonstrate clichés exist, therefore cliché should be AfD'd, therefore you cannot quote it to support your contention that calling something 'cliché' is inherently POV. [head explodes] I would suggest that since nobody seriously disputes that, say, 'head them off at the pass' is a cliché, it falls under WP:NPOV's a simple formulation section and can be given as an example (you could even strengthen it further by directly quoting Blazing Saddles calling it one). As can, say, riding off into the sunset. The cliché article is wrong if it asserts that calling anything whatsoever cliché is a violation of WP:NPOV. Hrimfaxi 07:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't quite agree with your interpretation. That the word "cliché" exists and has (hopefully) been used in the sense that the Cliché article explains is surely very verifiable. But that something can be labelled "a cliché" NPOVly is a different matter! By your same reasoning, the article about God should not exist, because the existence of God is not verifiable (sorry, just the first example I could think about, not trying to stir up a religious debate now). But that the word God has been used many times to refer to such and such is verifiable, and that's why the article exists and should continue to exist. As far as a simple formulation is concerned, well, I think that making a list that is entirely composed of opinions by "an identifiable and subjectively quantifiable population" (not even "a name", which is usually much more desirable) is stretching it more than a little. At the very least, if these article are two have any value, they should cite extensively the surveys and researches they're based upon; otherwise, they just strike my eyes as blatant POV original research. LjL 13:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we should then AfD the cliché article because it is not enough for a word to exist to warrant an article on it. As said, sources certainly can be cited to define things as clichés. By your reasoning above, since no NPOV source can be cited on the existence of God, there really shouldn't be a God article, and we clear the way to solipsism since there's no NPOV way to prove that, say, the United States of America isn't an incredibly elaborate hoax. The Cliché article actually states that "identification of a cliché depends largely on who uses it and who makes the judgement;" this does not mean, however, that there are not large numbers of things that most would agree are clichés, or that we cannot name anything as a cliché. For example, someone who has never played a videogame would not regard exploding barrels as a cliché; most gamers do because of the sheer number of games they appear in, and they have been mocked as such to the extent that at one point Valve was planning to put an Exploding Barrel Factory in Half-Life 2. Thusly, we can say 'Exploding barrels are generally regarded as a videogame cliché' and be NPOV; 'generally regarded' in the sense of a cliché means 'among those familiar with the medium in question.' A slight re-write is probably necessary for all of these lists to emphasise that these are regarded as clichés among fans of the medium and to cite sources on some of them [though simply listing a lot of examples goes some way to establishing that; for example, listing examples of the classic 'spherical black bomb' appearing in cartoons]. A slight issue about the definition of a term isn't really a reason to remove an entire article, particularly since there is no argument that all of these things exist or are common. Hrimfaxi 06:22, 20 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.