Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer and video game events and occurrences

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 kept no consensus - defaults to keep Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer and video game events and occurrences, Computer and video game character stereotypes, Computer and video game settings

Unverified original research; fails WP:V and WP:OR criteria. Also, the article doesn't explain exactly how many video games a theme/characteristic/setting has to be in to be considered a stereotype or cliche. Is five to ten enough or does it have to be fifty or higher?--TBCTaLk?!? 05:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as unverifiable original research.--John Lake 05:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD, while actually for the article Computer and video game clichés, is relevant here as the version of the article then discussed[1] included these topics, which were apparently split off later. I don't have an opinion yet myself on this. BryanG^(talk) 05:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, note that many of the stereotypes and cliches listed in the nominated articles apply to other forms of media, such as literature, movies, and television shows.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 07:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons discussed in the previous AfD, though these should be moved so there's some sort of consistency between the computer and video game cliché articles. Ace of Sevens 09:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - anorak cruft doktorb _words^deeds 10:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ace of Sevens. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 11:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ace of Sevens. These conventions are all arguably relevant to computer and video game culture, as well as genre, and it's not OR because examples are cited. --SevereTireDamage 22:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, The nominated articles are unverified and original reasearch since the examples included must be cited from reliable sources such as books, websites, or magazines; not from the research of the users editing the article.--TBCTaLk?!? 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Cleanup Reasons per Ace of Sevens and SevereTireDamage. As it stands, the article is admittedly borderline junk but it looks like it may be salvageable. An article on the recurring themes of video games seems pretty important. The charge of original research is probably true, but irrelevant. "Original research" these days usually just means a user came up with an idea he thought was his own, except that other more important people already thought of it (in short, the "original research" probably has unintended references online, so in practice, it's not original research). I'll give the creators some time to sort it out. Note that the article was made only a month ago. -- Solberg 08:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
Keep as these are definitely not OR. Computer games are commonly used as the source for articles about computer games. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good article, but original research. Needs citations. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not Original Research since it's only mentioning well observed and established facts without forming WP:OR conclusions, opinions and WP:POV. Most (if not all) are verifiable and don't need citations since the names of the games where the cliches are observed are the sources. Pictureuploader 09:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep just give time to find refrences or evidence it is pubic domain..[2] --Bud0011 15:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ste4k 03:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is important and not really original research Yuckfoo 07:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a subpage of Wikiproject CVG until sourced. Kotepho 18:05, 21 July 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.