Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of jokes considered 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 12:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

List of jokes considered clichés
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, such as a list of supposedly clichéd common jokes 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 20:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hektor. Apply my vote to all related AfDs M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 22:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom. Fluit 07:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki &mdash; RJH 15:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete this non-notable, POV, OR, almost devoid of content article (which, by the ways, almost looks like it was intended to be a joke). LjL 17:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or assimilate into other articles This article is to broad for one subject. Almost anything can actually be considered a cliche joke or gag, depending on the source.  Content within should probably be separatley transfered to their appropriate cliche lists.  Matt Neuteboom 23:50, 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 04:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: and how exactly do you state that something is "cliché" while maintaining NPOV (and not doing original research in the process, by the way)? Also, isn't an article titled "x considered y" POV by definition? (considered by whom?) LjL 13:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep all cliches.  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 18:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The cliché article defines:
 * [The word "cliché"] has since come to mean a phrase, expression, or idea that has been overused to the point of losing its intended force or novelty.
 * How do you decide "overused to the point of losing its intended force"? How used is overused? Who knows what the "intended" force was?
 * The same article later goes on to say:
 * [...] identification of a cliché depends largely on who uses it and who makes the judgement.
 * Which is the same as saying that classifying something as "cliché" is POV by definition. Do you disagree? LjL 19:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Inherently non-neutral construct, and poor use of the List function. — Encephalon 04:03, 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.