Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animation clichés (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of this article is original research. Despite a previous AfD in May that cited Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and voiced concerns about problems with NPOV, original reasearch, and verifiability, no changes have been made to address these problems. The article continues to be an indiscriminate collection of whatever editors have decided are clichés without any references or rules for inclusion. It's listcruft. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above QuiteUnusual 20:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- I like lists, I like them alot. In fact, I would go so far... actually, not here I wouldn't. Even I admit they have no place on Wikipedia. Bubba hotep 20:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR. I am not opposed to cliché articles on here so long as they are cited as such. A better article would be something like animation clichés with discussions of whatever critics/reviewers have noted as "cliché" in animation history. But this article is a dumping ground of personal observations in animation without a reliable source to save it's life. —Mitaphane talk 20:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as indiscrimate original research (and not a few instances of complete bollocks) ➥the Epopt 21:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research.--TBCΦtalk? 21:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR, and the lack of sources has led, as Epopt said, to a lot of examples that are pure hooey. Andrew Levine 21:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR; WP:RS. Hello32020 00:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 02:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the cliché justification that this is unverified and original research.-- danntm T C 03:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Anomo 10:22, 29 October 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.