Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film 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The result was keep - article substantially improved and nomination withdrawn during AfD process. WJBscribe (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

List of film clichés

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While an article on film cliches may be worthwhile, having a list of them does not really make sense. What qualifies as a "cliche" and what doesn't? Fails WP:LISTN. Beerest355 Talk 19:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is an unverifiable mess of original research.  I can certainly see potential here, but it would have to be rewritten to discuss common tropes and plot devices used in film.  An arbitrary list, however, is not encyclopedic.  This is more suitable to TV Tropes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm satisfied with the improvements made to the article, though I still don't see the different between WP:TNT and rewriting the article from scratch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Most of the entries are unsourced OR (romantic triangle?). I could see a list being compiled, but there's not much worth saving from this one. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comment indicates that, in your view, there is something worth saving here. Why then should we delete this, throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Warden (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You know what's not a cliché? Actual reliable sources. Even after the makeover, it's still a steaming pile of dubiosity. Blow it up and start over. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.


 * Keep. Passes WP:LISTN easily being the subject of sources such as Ebert's Bigger Little Movie Glossary: A Greatly Expanded and Much Improved Compendium of Movie Cliches, Stereotypes, Obligatory Scenes, Hackneyed Formulas, Shopworn Conventions, and Outdated Archetypes. Individual cliches such as the happy ending are the subject of extensive academic analysis such as Happy Endings in Hollywood Cinema: Cliché, Convention, and the Final Couple and, as we have articles about these such as car chase and pie fight, it makes sense to have a list of them as an index.  The current draft isn't very good but it is quite new and so just requires support and and encouragement per our editing policy.  The nominator has done nothing to help, though, and so should please see WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Warden (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it passes LISTN, but that might be an instance of why that's really not a great guideline, as there are plenty of things that are covered enough as a group to be notable yet not proper to list out. I think the best argument the delete !voters are making above boils down to WP:TNT: there is a lot of crap in this article, that mistakes as clichés what are standard (or even integral) genre elements (such as shootouts in westerns, or sports films "loosely based off a real-life athlete or team"; might as well say it's a cliché for a sports film to feature sports), or that are just inexplicable in their inclusion (a "plural noun" film title is a cliché? wtf??), and only two entries have any kind of proper citation (i.e., a secondary source expressly identifying it as a cliche). So I honestly think nothing would be lost to blow it up and start over in this instance. I'm typically reluctant to say that. postdlf (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What we might lose, apart from the basic idea and the current content, is the goodwill of the editor who got this page started. Our guideline WP:DONTBITE states emphatically, "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility." Bringing out explosives in order to make a bold restructuring of the article would be quite pointy too.  I flagged the article for rescue and am quite capable of rewriting the entire thing myself, if I have to.  Deletion is therefore quite unnecessary and unhelpful and would be contrary to multiple policies and guidelines.  WP:TNT, on the other hand, is just an essay and so has no standing here. Warden (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with both NinjaRobotPirate, Warden and postdlf, in the way that the list has much potential, yet in order for the potential to be fully realized, the article must be kept in order for it grow. Like what was said previously, many of these are elements specific to a genre, and so perhaps this article could be recreated as just a standard list of clichés or list of clichés in media. As for whether or not certain clichés are notable enough to be included, I think that it should be handled like this: a user adds a cliché to the list, and others working on the page should discuss if it should stay. Or maybe we could ask editors to take a suggestion onto the talk page before officially placing it in the article. I also think that each cliché should be referenced. But that's just my two cents, and because I created it and want it to grow, and perhaps be a featured article someday, I opt to keep it. --Matthew (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * List inclusion would have to be based on reliable sources to avoid being original research. If we completely rewrite the article and change the scope, then I could see keeping the article.  That's basically the same thing as WP:TNT, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tried a single pass rewrite to boil the list down to its essentials and provide a cleaner structure for further development. Sourcing and further additions will help but the current examples such as car chase seem sufficiently obvious as to need little elaboration. Warden (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, educational and encyclopedic topic, great room for quality improvement here, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has been significantly changed since it was nominated for deletion. It has references for the information left in there, and a lot of nonsense was removed.   D r e a m Focus  13:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * strong delete:RIDICULOUSLY long and indiscriminate list, where there is an entire wiki dedicated to categorizing the thousands and thousands of tropes and cliches. No criteria defining what "overused" is, subject to horrible amounts of WP:OR. If kept the criteria need to be SIGNIFICANTLY tightened, with every entry in the list being backed by a reliable source naming it as a movie cliche. Fails all the elements of WP:CSC, and also fails WP:LSC (highly subjective). WP:OR WP:V boom delete. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Some already have their own Wikipedia articles. Car_chase, Cliffhanger, Deathtrap_(plot_device), Deus ex machina, Happy ending, Love_triangle, Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, Training_montage, Tokenism.  D r e a m Focus  16:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, im not denying there are such things as notable cliches. If we want to rename the article "list of wikipedia articles about movie cliches" then that could be viable since every article would be subject to WP:N and WP:OR. But for example the "Car trouble" cliche is linking to Automobile  right now.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I searched for newspapers covering film cliches and found ample results. I added some into the article.  I'll keep working on it.   D r e a m Focus  16:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve as a list of demonstrably notable topics (bluelinks as itemized by Dream Focus, plus only other clichés demonstrably amenable to being developed into similar articles or sections of articles). --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Per WP:CSC, list additions should be limited to existing articles on plot devices.  This article should be modeled after List of films considered the best, which is neutral, factual, and educational, rather than an indiscriminate collection of trivia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Can't be exhaustive; a threshold of what belongs and what doesn't can't be established objectively (and no, in my opinion, some schmo writing a book doesn't count). If a film cliche is notable, put it in its own article or write a Wiktionary entry  p  b  p  01:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * - sorry but "some schmo writing in a book" is instead exactly all that counts, given WP:V, WP:TRUTH and WP:RS. I also remind readers of this AfD that Pbp's quest to change policy to get a few of current AfDs his own way is currently failing spectacularly (not that there's anything wrong with this, I also proposed stuff that failed - just showing that the "objectivity" argument above has no consensus so far). -- cyclopia speak! 09:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , please stop canvassing the VPP proposal, and stop following me around in general. You know I'm not going to change my mind.  p  b  p  15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * - That is not canvassing at all, I'm not asking people to vote on it one way or the other (and also, don't you want more eyes on it, given how it is going?). Also, nobody is following you, frankly. If you don't change your mind even after policy has been pointed to you, fine, but this is not something I'd be proud, if I were in you. -- cyclopia speak! 15:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I interpret policy differently than you do, and if you were trying to get everybody (which isn't happening; it appears only people who vote keep in these AfDs find there way to the VPP), you'd have worded the linking in a more neutral manner. As it stands, it is a derogatory remark, quite like many other comments you have made to me, Pen of Doom, and others who rightfully want to rid this Wikipedia of cruft  p  b  p  15:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You read my mind wrong again. I am actually not trying to get anybody to vote on your proposal. I was just pointing that your attempt to change policy mid-AfD to make it consistent with your opinion is not getting any consensus at all. That is hardly derogatory, so much that I even added explicitly that there is nothing wrong with the fact you have a non-consensual opinion (heck, I have lots of opinions on WP that get little consensus). However I suppose it is of interest, for the admin closer, that your general opinion on list selection criteria represents a non-consensual one, and also to point that attempts at changing policy during the AfD happened (which is quite bad form). No more, no less. The "canvassing" idea is all yours. -- cyclopia speak! 15:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously notable topic, and plenty of sourcing shown above. Just for fun: a chapter on clichès in western cinema, an academic book on film stereotypes, a book on archetypes in horror movies, etc.etc.-- cyclopia speak! 09:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and archetypes in Japanese cinema. Perhaps we should start sublists on the different genres? -- cyclopia speak! 09:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep, and I'll echo Warden's concerns about the nomination. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.