Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animation 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. Xoloz 02:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of animation 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)

• Keep or transfer to wikibooks or wikisource. Very interesting list which should be available somewhere, if not on Wikipedia.Hektor 20:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Not only is the list POV, so is the whole idea it's somehow "interesting". Fluit 07:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notes directed at specific cartoons are citations of a sort, noting that a convention is parodied in another cartoon is also a citation: yes, some people can't be bothered to watch the cartoons to check the citations, but you could easily extend that arguement to people not bothering to read books or websites cited and make citing anything as a source of anything impossible. Half of the things here can be cited to the sources in Cartoon physics anyway. Also, it's POV to state the list is somehow not interesting, last I checked; it obviously interests the numerous editors involved in creating the article. Hrimfaxi 09:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki — RJH 15:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Transwiki per discussion above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki. I fail to see how this list is both encyclopedic and verifiable? —Ruud 23:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. (No other option makes sense.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article could prove useful with a little work and consensus. Cliche's are notable. --The_stuart 04:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per me and everyone else.  Grue  14:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but needs references. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be a bad faith nomination as cliches are generally notable. - CNichols 18:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• KeepL-Zwei 07:07, 17 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.