Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video game item 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 delete. --Core desat  00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Video game item clichés

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Deproded with a suggestion to send to AFD. Original concern: Unsourced, non-notable, and non-verifiable. See previous nomination at Articles for deletion/Computer and video game clichés and Articles for deletion/Computer and video game item clichés. No vote from me. -- ReyBrujo 01:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I would like to point out that, with this one, the article has been nominated 3 times for deletion based on original research. On September 2006 was the last nomination, where people expressed opinions that this article should be cleaned, and comparing with other cliché lists like List of animation clichés (deleted per Articles for deletion/List of animation clichés (second nomination)) and List of comic book clichés (deleted per Articles for deletion/List of comic book clichés (2nd nomination)). Here are the differences from September (last time it was nominated) and today.-- ReyBrujo 01:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I accept that the article is somewhat cruftish, but its inclusion is valuable. The article is at least verifiable, sourced, and well-written. - Richardcavell 02:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete While this article is pretty well written and not a bad read it is not an encyclopedia article (it might be appropriate for a video game wiki). The information is almost entirely original research.  It might be possible to source an article on this topic, but this isn't really a start. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete for all the same reasons that the list of comic book clichés was deleted. Otto4711 04:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Noble attempts to keep and cleanup have failed miserably, original research is effectively inseparable from text. Deltabeignet 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OMG I-had-no-idea-iron-bars-were-a-cliche delete - Puh-lease! Cruft & pointless. Do we really need an article telling us that pieces of string & iron bars are game cliches? I think not.... Yaknow maybe the author would like this cliche - Delete as per nom... ;) Spawn Man 05:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete yet another "cliché" list. JuJube 07:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as per my original reasonings in Articles for deletion/Computer and video game item clichés: "Original research and unverified, thus failing both the WP:OR and WP:V criterias. Most of these so-called "cliches" would obviously appear in a video game depending on the game's setting. For example, one cliche is finding toilets in FPS video games involving humans, which is obvious in that many humans in our society use toilets. Also, some cliches don't apply only to video games, but to all forms of media, including books, films. etc". After six months, nothing seems to have changed since the previous AfD nomination, other than the addition of more unverified, uncited cruft.-- TBC Φ  talk?  08:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - People have already started adding references. This is our chance for an encyclopedic treatment of the subject.  Let's jump on it.  Also per WP:LIST - information and navigation. - Peregrine Fisher 10:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In a time period of six months, two references were removed and only one reference was added, in addition to more cruft.-- TBC Φ  talk?  10:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't a time limit one when a page must be finished. If there was, deleting this would only increase the amount of time, anyways. Also, the external links could provide the refs, if anyone takes the time to format them. - Peregrine Fisher 11:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if the article was to be cleaned up, many of the "cliches" listed in the article aren't actually considered cliches, as they:
 * Are due to technological restrictions in video games.
 * Are due to the game's setting, such as having toilets in games involving humans.
 * Apply to all forms of media, such as having potions and healing herbs (which appears commonly in all fantasy-related media).-- TBC Φ  talk?  11:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I don't see how the root cause of the cliche excludes it, nor a cliche being in the real world, or being found in other media. Is there some reason a cliche has to be exclusive, completely original, and not have some other influence behind it?  Not so far as I know.  If you do, perhaps you should add that to Cliché so the rest of us can know about it.  FrozenPurpleCube 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If the cliches listed in the article are nearly identical in concept with cliches found in other forms of media, then why do we need a seperate page for video games? Would it not be redundant? Also, extending on my toilet cliche example: In contemporary times, humans have often used toilets to dispose of their bodily wastes, and as humans tend to do this often, there are a large number of toilets throughout the world. As such, how then is it a cliche that video games with humans or humanoids tend to have toilets? Are gun or sticks or cars cliches as well?-- TBC Φ  talk?  05:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your fixation on this toilet thing, I don't see it as a significant portion of the article (IOW, it could be removed without bothering me). Cliches themselves, though, often involve things that exist in the real world.  Some people think say, being stuck in an elevator is a cliche.   Does that mean nobody ever gets stuck in an elevator?  Of course not, just the other day, somebody was on the news for being trapped 11 hours in an elevator here.  But if there's a sitcom cliches page and it mentioned it, I'd not be surprised.  Same goes for cliches in video games.  Sure, some of them may be the same as in other genres (and depending on the content, it might be appropriate to locate the cliche elsewhere).  For example, something could be a cliche in Greek and Japanese theatre, but not in  say, Broadway theatre.  Don't know of any specific examples, not off the top of my head, but I'm trying to illustrate why your objection doesn't work.  At most, they're clean-up issues.  Stick to other things if you want to convince me on deletion.  Bad arguments can ruin a good one.  OR is a much better route to go here.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If none of the cliches are specific to video games (ie they happen often in real life or in other genres) then there's obviously no merit for a seperate article. It's as simple as that. Regardless though, the article still fails the criterias listed at WP:ATT and WP:OR.-- TBC Φ  talk?  08:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is if they don't always exist in the other genres, and that of video game settings is effectively unique in its components. But I said this already, you just didn't respond to it.  FrozenPurpleCube 05:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, all original research. I don't see how this could possibly be sourced without becoming an unpublished synthesis of published material. Krimpet 14:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. OR cruft. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   14:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Excellent article though. Very good original research. --Webkami 15:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- some OR, but I imagine it could be sourced and turned into an article. Astrotrain 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, this article is an ever-expanding lump of cruft, as editors add their favourite appearances of toilets in games without ever bothering to whip the article into shape. Not that it can be whipped into shape; no consistent, systematic definition of a 'video game item cliche' is offered. If toilets and bits of string count as cliches, why not add magic wands, bullets, coins, scrolls, shoes, things made of wood or menu screens?-- Nydas (Talk) 16:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. An amusing read but that doesn't fix the OR issue. Arkyan 17:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the problem here is that the references need to identify all these things as cliches. It isn't enough to cite a reference that confirms many video games have secret levels and ammo packs and so on.  If you can't find references that actually engage with the subject of the article, it will remain a synthesis of other sources into a new interpretation.- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:SYN makes a good argument against, but I think it's hard to argue that Video_game_item_clichés isn't correct when it references so many games with exploding barrels, or that we're really drawing a new and spectacular conclusion because it isn't in the Times newspaper, or even a blog. WP:OR is something I'm reluctant to apply to an article that is a useful compilation and doesn't exactly warrant using the scientific method (as cliche can always be debated). I'm sure somebody will force me to find a nice anology... Autocracy 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some utterly tenuous connections being made here, and with a title like "clichés" that's only likely to perpetuate. The title itself undermines the article's supposed informational value; something like Video game design trends or Video game item design trends might be a better premise. –Unint 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it a little bit more, the use of "clichés" completely demeans the subject of the article. These are elements of gameplay, game mechanics, or puzzle design. Sometimes they are indicators of technical limitations, or the conventions of a particularly popular genre. A useful article would discuss the rationales and reasons behind these game elements and illustrate how they have evolved over time, not just list them ad nauseum and taken completely at face value. –Unint 21:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep article is well written and sourced. Analysis of items common in video games. Nardman1 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * External links ≠ sources.-- TBC Φ  talk?  08:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Don't let the keep !voters fool you: this is not sourced.  There are two sources, both of which are humorous and not serious, and don't really say much.  WP:OR, and there has been enough time for this to improve already.  Mango juice talk 21:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Correct, the article is not, in spite of comments above, sourced. And, also in spite of comments above, it continues to fail WP:OR.--Anthony.bradbury 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete trivial information that lacks necessary sourcing, possible original research.-- danntm T C 03:36, 9 March 2007 (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.