Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer and video game item 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 no consensus. - Bobet 16:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Computer and video game item clichés

Original research and unverified, thus failing both the WP:OR and WP:V criterias. Most of these so-called "cliches" would obviously appear in a video game depending on the game's setting. For example, one cliche is finding toilets in FPS video games involving humans, which is obvious in that there are many humans who use toilets now. Also, some cliches don't apply only to video games, but to all forms of media, including books, films. etc.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• • This article was previously nominated and survived with almost 100% keep.  Grue  06:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, a few similar AfD's , such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer and video game character stereotypes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fighting game character stereotypes, were both nominated and then deleted later on.--TBCTaLk?!? 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer and video game character stereotypes, a related AfD.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The very act of calling these cliches is largely POV. eaolson 04:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons I nominated List of fighting game character stereotypes - POV, original research and no verifiability. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 04:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as it is now, there are two references for all the article, plus some external links. Remove everything that is not referenced, or just delete. -- ReyBrujo 05:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone's well-explained rationale. Danny Lilithborne 06:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well referenced article, survived VfD already. I wonder whether you read it at all (both the article and the previous VfD).  Grue  06:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Though it may have survived one VfD already, how does that make it immune from being nominated for another?--TBCTaLk?!? 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If it survived once, would not the better action be to revert to that better version that everyone supported rather than delete what once was considered good enough to belong here? Janizary 03:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well... the previous AfD seems to have been on computer and video game clichés in general, not just items.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic essay and as per all above Bwithh 12:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While it might be hard to determine criteria for the inclusion of cliches on this page, it nonetheless registers conventional norms that typify a notable art form. See also On-screen clichés.ThaddeusFrye 14:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Grue. I don't see what you guys are objecting to regarding references. I see a half-dozen external links, and a slew of inline examples. Perhaps the term cliche could be reworded to something less POV, but given the references cited it might be difficult. --Roninbk 14:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, because most of the external links are on articles which talk about gaming cliches in general, and not specifically item cliches.--TBCTaLk?!? 15:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Mayhaps because this article was split from a larger cliché article and some cleanup still needs to be done? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is the case. The original cliche articles was split into characters, items and settings as it had grown to an unwieldly length.
• Comment Also, note that many of these "cliches" are mostly due to technology restraints in video games, such as "One Size Fits All".--TBCTaLk?!? 15:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Almost the entire thing is opinion, and many of these aren't cliches. A few of these might benefit from their own page (the crate one), but most of them are just a case of computers not having the power (displaying everything you carry at all times) or common sense (not having 40 different sizes of armour). Gundato 16:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Funny but definitely not encyclopedic. Pavel Vozenilek 17:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hardly an encyclopedic list. Andrew Levine 20:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's an interesting article, but it doesn't belong anywhere apart from userspace. One example being here. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 01:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane _talk 08:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I don't see how an argument for verfiability can be made when EGM (one of the largest video gaming magazines) has specifically mentioned 2 of the items in the article as cliches. As far as WP:OR, there are sections in the article that contain OR, but that's a matter of cleanup, not whether this topic should exist at all. Mitaphane _talk 08:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That is jut it, even then it is still purely opinion. EGM may show that these have been referred to as Cliche in the past, but that does not a cliche (or fact) make. Gundato 13:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Kind of like "A peer-reviewed journal may state a scientific foundations of new theory are solid in light of our current knowledge, but that doesn't make it factual," right? =) If a couple of journalists from different mags get the bright idea to bash out an article that goes "X,Y, and Z are beginning to sound like cliches", and happen to agree on those, I'm betting that's a reasonable fact to be included to any article on the subject. Ludologists are still rare, we need to rely on other, less glamorous authorities too, like journalists. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Touche. But I for one don't think it wise to compare a gaming magazine (that tends to give bonus points for buying ad-space) to a scientific journal. Don't get me wrong, I think this COULD work. I just don't think this is how it should be done. This is a lot like looking at an Easter Eggs topic on GameFAQs. They list a lot of stuff, but most of those aren't easter eggs. The same is true here. The crate one for example is a known cliche. But most of the ones here are either gaming traditions/conventions, or just a case of saving resources (not showing every single item on the character), or just good gameplay (not having to make sure that the inseam is right for your platemail). However, I really don't see the current creators of this page cleaning it up (just judging by the listing of "cliches" in the discussion page. And just a quick bit of info on the last attempt to delete this, I really don't think that is a good example of why it should be saved. Look at it, most of it is just "This is really cool, keep it." Gundato 01:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per previous AfDs. In my vehement opinion, this article can be made to work in a proper fashion. AfD is not cleanup. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• If this article must be deleted then all clichés-related lists on Wikipedia must be AFD'd too, e.g. list of animation clichés, list of comic book clichés, on-screen clichés, and so on. It should also be noted that both policies quoted by TBC are closely related, and given that the list has survived a previous AFD by nearly 100% of support, I would say that keeping the article seems the right option. Comments about the encyclopedic nature of the list are irrelevant since many clichés-related articles exist, but nevertheless, since when deletion processes are a substitution to cleanup? —Coat of Arms (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that this nomination is not on a general list on clichés (like the ones you've mentioned above), but one concentrating on items. Also, the AfD you cited that recieved a lot of support votes is a nomination on Computer and video game clichés, not Computer and video game item clichés. As for the two policies I've cited, though they may be related, they are still policies and therefor considered a standard that all users should follow.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Lol, actually they're more than "standards", and of course all users should follow them. But you didn't answer my question, dude. The two policies you quoted are not a reason for an article's deletion; in fact, the list can be easily improved by including footnotes and removing original research material. And finally, if you didn't noticed before Computer and video game clichés redirects here; the page was moved by Matt Neuteboom on 1 July, 2006. [1] Cheers, —Coat of Arms (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • How is violating two policies considered "not a reason for an article's deletion"? Also, virtually all of the article is original research, so you can't really remove it without having to delete it instead. Either way, even if the article is cleaned up, most (if not all) the item cliches mentioned in the article are either:

a) Due to technological restrictions in video games, such as the.

b) Logically there and not actually cliches, such as toilets in FPS' involving computer games.

c) Applies to all forms of media, such as having potions and healing herbs (which appears in most fantasy-related media).--TBCTaLk?!? 04:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • You're mistaking cleanup for a violation of official policies; the article certainly needs some work, but that is not a reason for deleting it. Got it? Also, according to Wikipedia a cliché is "a phrase, expression, or idea that has been overused to the point of losing its intended force or novelty", a definition that clearly applies to the majority of the information here, e.g. "long metal bars or simply crowbars are common in point-and-click adventure games in order to break and open things" or "in many first-person shooters and the occasional RTS, exploding barrels are frequently seen". By the way, note that your comment didn't show out properly. Cheers, —Coat of Arms (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
          • First of all, most of the items mentioned in the article logically appear in the video games due to their setting. For example, toilets would logically appear in an FPS involving humans since humans use toilets, and a crowbar would logically appear in games involving "breaking and opening things" since crowbars are used in real life for breaking and opening things. As for cleaning up the article, as Wickthework mentioned below, since so much of the content is original research, removing it would leave the article too short to merit either an article or a stub--TBCTaLk?!? 04:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
            • The Crowbar, I can give you, but the Toilet section refers to the promient use of toilets for humor or grossness factors. And those two don't discount the Piece of String, the use of Magic satchels, the overuse of crates, Instant-use Medipacks(And the Turkey Leg of Healing found in the trash), One-Size-Fits-All armor, and the ever-popular Exploding Barrel. Sure, we can toss the crowbar section, and maybe cut the toilets one down to size, but those two don't necessitate the removal of the entire article. SAMAS 04:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and a Keep vote, too. :D SAMAS 04:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Just going over them,. the crate one is still arguable (but probably deserves its own page since, let's face it, it is an icon of gaming). String and rope, when used in puzzles, almost always are used for their intended purpose. Just being used a lot doesn't a cliche make. Would you rather they use chain? Wire? Two pick-axes? Metal-bars? Arguable as a weapon, but not so much a prying object. That IS why crowbars exist. The toilet one is just pathetic. Barrels, yeah that is funny (and probably a cliche at this point). The last three are more gameplay or engine limitations than not. So then, all that is left are two of the entries. Gundato 11:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This needs some clean-up, but has a decent foundation fo references. There's no sense throwing the whole article away because not every point in comes from one of said references. Either delete the unreferenced parts or find references, but don't delete the whole thing. Ace of Sevens 05:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Seems to be valid to me. I've observed all of the listed phenomena. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 14:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Commment. Simply observing it isn't enough to merit keeping an article, as it also needs verification for non-trivial, notable media sources.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As Wwwwolf, Coat of Arms, Ace of Sevens, and many others said, AFD is not cleanup. —SHININGEYES 18:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above "Keep"s. Altair 20:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Almost entirely original research. Simply having two references doesn't mean the rest of it isn't OR. If you remove the offending content, there simply isn't enough information on the subject to warrant an article or stub. Wickethewok 23:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, actually the majority of the information here is certainly not original research. Examples, please? —Coat of Arms (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Though there are external links, hardly anything in the article has been verified since the citations link to websites on gaming cliches in general, not specifically items. --TBCTaLk?!? 04:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as this article could be cleaned up, and improved. I would also accept moving to another wiki if a suitable one can be named. Mister.Manticore 05:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. AfD is not a clean up. Havok (T/C/c) 06:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. If this article can be cleaned up, there's no reason for deleting it. --Nkcs 18:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Any article can be cleaned up. The question is, what will be left afterwards? And will it still be purely opinion? In this case, there are only two that are widely accepted as cliche, and even those can't be backed up by anything better than gaming magazines (many of which do whatever it takes to cater to those who buy adspace). Gundato
• Keep. Not OR due to sources being present. Not gamecruft (comedy and other things have this) and actually a very intresting article (which IMO wikipedia needs more of). guitarhero777777 04:24, 20 September 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.