Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer and video game 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 Keep Computerjoe 's talk 20:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer and video game 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Keep as this is a good list --Stilanas 00:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to say... this is a psychotically well-done list. -- Kicking222 01:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's really not POV, but it is valuable. Some might argue it lacks sources, but we just need to add some. Andre (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is an excellent list and a quick scan of videogame forums, magazines or articles can find sources for any of the items on the list. In addition, the 'seen in' lists at the end of each section act in much the same way as citations anyway. Hrimfaxi 03:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, looking at User:NatusRoma's recent contributions shows they have AfD'd every single cliche list on Wikipedia. Hrimfaxi 03:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article is not an indiscriminate list, and I can't see how this qualifies as original research as examples and counter-examples are cited. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The references to games are still original research, because the editors of this article have synthesized primary source information (i.e., the computer and video games in question) into trends of supposed clichés. The policy on original research excludes information that "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments...without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." NatusRoma | Talk 18:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the Exploding Barrel Factory that was almost included in Half-Life 2, the jokes in Secret of Monkey Island about RPG characters' infinite carrying capacity [such as Guybrush putting a huge dog and the entire figurehead of a ship in his pockets], various running gags in games like Serious Sam: The Second Encounter about all enemies looking the same ['Hey, didn't I kick your ass two rooms ago?'], Futurama's videogame episode [including a locked door that gives the message 'You need the blue key'], the jokes about rations restoring health in Metal Gear Solid 3 and dozens of other parodies all over the place can't be used to demonstrate that numerous videogame cliches not only exist but are frequently referenced in videogames themselves and in popular culture? Hrimfaxi 06:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. Fails to set any criteria, and by its own weak standards admits as much. Looks like someone is setting up a List of Really Lame Subjective Lists that Exist on Wikipedia. Fluit 07:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is 'setting up' a list created on 7 August last year? Is time travel a valid AfD argument now? Hrimfaxi 09:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki — RJH 15:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Transwiki per arguments above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: This was a GCOTW, if it wasn't worthy it would have been deleted already.--Zxcvbnm 22:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: This is one of the best articles on wikipedia, with great pictures and examples of games to cite sources. Excellent artcle. Matt Neuteboom 23:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (No other option makes sense.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable/original research/unencyclopedic. Perhaps merge a part into Computer and video game. —Ruud 01:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very surprising article to me, as I've often tried and failed to see anything in computer and video games (of the kinds dealt with here, I mean) that aren't clichés. I suppose these are the more easily describable clichés, or something. The whole thing is interesting in its way, but not encyclopedic. It's reminds me of how, long, long ago, people used to create their own websites and put their own material on them. That's where this should go: on somebody's own website. And not on Wikipedia; delete. -- Hoary 01:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the better lists on Wikipedia with references to games and other stuff. C&V games are extremely popular and such list must be in any encyclopedia that strives to keep up with the time. Grue 14:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per Grue. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a bad faith nomination as cliches are generally notable. - CNichols 18:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is priceless work and it must not be destroyed!! Sweetfreek 05:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page does a somewhat good job of pointing out the common things found in games. 24.188.203.181 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Transwiki. It's not a really serious article about a crucial or critical scientific or political subject so that Original Research must be condemned. Pictureuploader 16:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feinstein 04:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great article and highly relevant. Aguerriero (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this long, refined and surely interesting article, which, however, appears to be original research (feel free to add references if I'm wrong, there are none right now), and defining something as a cliché is POV], at least unless it's done by citing surveys, statistics etc. from by an external reliable source. LjL 19:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.