Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of jokes considered clichés (second nomination)


 * 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 Delete Viridae Talk 20:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

List of jokes considered clichés


This is the second time this is nominated. Come on.. how is this not blatant original research. Delete per WP:OR. It is this kind of thing that makes people say we aren't a real encyclopedia. MartinDK 13:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Lists of clichés always have inherent POV/OR problems and this article has made no attempt to solve them.--Folantin 13:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research/POV. There has been plenty of time since the previous AfD to turn it into a proper encyclopaedia article but nothing has been done. Demiurge 13:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources are added - this article probably could be written to be verifiable and encyclopaedic. If someone wants to do that between now and the closure, good for them (I have class/work). WilyD 14:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously OR and very crufty.  Canadian - Bacon  t  c 15:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is plenty of precedent for deleting these cliche lists and this one is worse than most. Moreschi 16:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WilyD Tonywalton | Talk 16:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete uncited OR Hut 8.5 18:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Folantin and nom. Whether or not anything is a cliche is entirely a matter of opinion and incapable of an objective standard. That this article is largely OR is a symptom of the subjective nature of the topic. Agent 86 19:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's actually not a vald argument. All kinds of articles deal with "subjective" topics and fly through AfD or even reach featured article status.  The important thing is that opinions and subjective evaluations be credited to a verifiable source - which does not occur here. WilyD 21:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. I did not say that subjective topics are not encyclopedic. I stated that I believed that the reason why this particular article was made up of original research was because of the subjective nature of the topic. This is on top of the fatal POV problems. Agent 86 21:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I really can't buy that argument. Tons of apparently non-subjective issues end up with exactly the same OR issue.  I'd guess almost every new user's first edit consists of OR (or at the very least, doesn't CITE) ~ my first edit  to a namespace article essentially was - it was accurate, but it's simply the way most editors start.  The POV problems aren't necessarily fatal (since by looking at the article, I have to imagine much of it could be sourced). WilyD 21:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete infinite list from hell! Rever e ndG 23:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - devil's advocate !vote at this point, but this is not a novel concept: compare the entry under "released jokes" here. Newyorkbrad 23:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:BJAODN -- RoninBK E TC 08:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The original AfD seemed to focus on whether it is notable - but that's beside the point, as this is unsourced and likely original research. On that note, perhaps some or all of the other articles listed at Lists of clichés need to be considered for deletion... Mdwh 23:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed. I've just written about the problems with List of clichés found in literature on its talk page if you're interested. --Folantin 12:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 15:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:37, 29 November 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.