Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video game settings

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. --Coredesat 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video game settings

Video game settings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article has been nominated for deletion twice before, both discussions resulting in no consensus. Although over eight months have past since the original AfD nomination, the article has yet to improve; still unverified, unsourced, and original research. Similar articles have also been deleted before, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animation clichés (second nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer and video game character stereotypes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fighting game character stereotypes, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of comic book clichés (2nd nomination). Also, as I've stated in the previous nomination:

I doubt that the article can be cleaned up, since many of the listed "clichés" are either:

1. Seen in other forms of media, and not specifically related to video games. For example, Area 51-related facilities appear commonly in all science fiction related media, not just video games.
2. Due to technological restrictions, such as cities having fewer builings than what one would see in a real city.
3. Appear commonly in real life, so they can't technically be considered as a "cliché". This includes settings such as jungles, deserts, grasslands, and forests. TBCΦtalk? 11:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - original research Jules 12:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Again, none of your objections to these settings being considered cliche actually convince me. Something being a cliche for Video games and for other Science Fiction media? So what? Cliches are not limited to one media. Having fewer buildings? Makes sense to me that technological restrictions might determine why a cliche happens. I don't see how that possible excludes them from being a cliche. And appearing in real life doesn't make things not a cliche either. But even if I did agree with you, those are content-disputes, not deletion arguments. You'd be better of just sticking to the WP:V and OR concerns, though I do think those can be resolved. Beyond that, I do think the title of the article is poor, and it should be renamed if kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mister.Manticore (talk • contribs) 13:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
  • See my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video game item clichés. 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. --TBCΦtalk? 08:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No place for an article of this size in Wikipedia. Possibility of continuing VASTLY cut down, but the present page should certainly go without delay; I am amazed it has survived for so long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ANHL (talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
• Delete due to lack of sourcing and OR concerns. Arkyan 16:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. I'd be curious what ground for keeping it there'd be beyond WP:ILIKEIT. RGTraynor 16:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom and per being indiscriminate OR. Otto4711 17:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. More videogame-related fancruft is not good. JuJube 20:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep well-written and someone put a lot of time into it. Nardman1 20:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a failure of WP:ATT. Nuttah68 21:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep some of the arguments put forward for deletion are simply bamboozling, it seems to me to have the basis of a rather well written article in there. Cloveoil 05:39, 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.