Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video game plot and universe 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. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video game plot and universe clichés[edit]

Inherent problems with verifiability and original research. Cleanup is not a feasible option. Deltabeignet 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, as they are branches of a common topic and suffer from the same problems :Role-playing game clichés (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Deltabeignet 05:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video game item clichés. Deltabeignet 05:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. RobJ1981 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's OR right now, but the external links section has enough info to cite most of this. What can be cited, should, the rest removed. Since this page can be fixed, it should not be deleted. - Peregrine Fisher 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Peregrine Fisher. --History Fan 02:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The external links are nothing more than lists of clichés and do not constitue adequate sourcing. This article is still WP:OR in spite of the lists. Gutting the article of most of its substance to resolve the OR concerns leaves it all but empty. Arkyan 15:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as original research with hardly any sources or references to verify any of the claims made in the article.--TBCΦtalk? 02:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of it appears to be ripped off from the Grand List of Console Role-Playing Game Cliches. Metakraid 21:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: I agree that it's OR and even the external links don't constitute sourcing. Tnomad 10:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Re criticisms of lack of sourcing: sources for the info on individual video games will be on the page for those games; there's no need to relist all the sources on this page.
Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video game item clichés, List of animation clichés and List of comic book clichés: boatloads of WP:OR, no way to source this without synthesizing information to draw a conclusion, and the whole idea of a "cliche" is POV and ill-defined. Krimpet (talk/review) 07:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've never been a fan of articles about clichés, as it is hard to determine just how prevolent something has to be to be considered a cliché. As a result, they tend to look like OR. This article is no exception. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 18:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the same reasons the other cliché articles were deleted. Otto4711 03:47, 2 April 2007 (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.