articles For Deletion/Cliché

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.

(non-administrative closure) – RyanCross (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cliché

Cliché (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

cliché is a dictionary subject. The Wikipedia page Cliché has existed since April 2005 when it was first created by an IP address, and it has not developed as an encyclopaedia article. It is time to hit it on the head (see Wiki is not a dictionary). Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and retain expansion tag until the article improves. An important literary/cultural topic that can easily pass the WP:NAD criterion of denotation, becoming at least on par with simile, metaphor, or pun. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but I agree with expansion. There are some instances where a dictionary definition falls short in helping one to understand a word, and further explanation is appropriate, and nominator is right that this hasn't been developed. A person should be able to type in the word cliche or Cliché and be directed to an article that has more than this, and there is room for improvement. The topic is appropriate in any event. As with double negative, a cliche is (generally, but not always) something to avoid in writing, and requires an understanding of what a cliche is and why its use is discretionary. Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep plenty of WP:RS, encycopedic subject. AfD is not for articles that just need "growing"/improvement.Sticky Parkin 14:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand per above. AFD is not cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think it needs cleaning up I think it needs deleting. It is a dictionary term not an encyclopaedic one. That it has not been expanded in three and a half years is an indication of this. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It's an indication that there are few editors willing to actually sit down and tackle difficult stubs, rather than pick at low hanging fruit. In part, it's a consequence of systemic bias and recentism. It's easy to flesh out an article on a currently popular public figure in North America or Europe, or on something on the television or the World Wide Web. It's a lot harder to tackle a stub that requires a lot of preparatory reading for the layperson. Equally, it's a consequence of the sheer number of stubs on Wiki English.

    But deletion isn't the answer. Our policy is to keep stubs that have potential for expansion. Back when Wikipedia first started, the thinking was that these stubs would eventually be expanded, and that is still as true today as it was then. True, we've raised a lot of articles to featured status since then, and our standards are a lot higher. But we've also gained a whole lot more stubs to expand, in that time, as well. To see the expansion process in action, look how long it has already taken some articles to be expanded. North Asia took almost five years to expand beyond a 2 sentence stub, for example. That is the sort of timescale that we have to expect on a project written by unpaid volunteers.

    Today's expansions have included Spoiled brat (AfD discussion), which has languished in random-collection-of-occurrences-in-fiction hell since May 2005, making it almost as old as this article. Loaded language (AfD discussion), similarly, has been around since May 2003. An administrator hitting a delete button wasn't any part of the solution to either of their problems. Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The reading list demonstrates that there is much that can said about this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Here a a couple more books on the subject [1][2] and it's been the object of lots of academic study [3]. That goes far beyond dictionary definition of the word. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2008 (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.