Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of snowclones (2nd nomination)

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 TO DELETE. Several of the Keep commentors also suggested pruning and/or sourcing. Maybe this should be part of the close, but I am not making it part of the close, but just a suggestion. Herostratus 22:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of snowclones

A list of examples of a neologism. As far as I can tell, we have on sources for these being considered notable examples of snowclones, or indeed examples at all. Appears to be both indiscriminate (WP:NOT) and original research. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indiscriminate and OR-ridden. Otto4711 13:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above statements. I saved this page for own reference though, it may become useful :P --Tinctorius 20:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't meet the standards of WP:NOR and appears to be potentially all-inclusive regardless of snowclone influence or merit anyway. --Jacj 02:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a lot of cruft that needs to be pruned out, but the core idea seems to be useful, notable, and reasonably encyclopedic. Some good points in the article's favor were made last time. Note that the list elements are not "examples of a neologism"; rather, they are examples of snowclones. The word snowclone is a neologism, but the list elements are not neologisms. --Quuxplusone 08:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and prune per User:Quuxplusone. Dismas|^(talk) 07:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, source, and prune. It seems like a lot of these could probably be sourced, though I'm sure there are many which aren't even notable enough for inclusion. Jeff Silvers 13:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete, or rename and prune. My views on the name "list of snowclones" are here. Very few of the listed phrases have been verifiably categorised as snowclones. So few, in fact, that I believe the full list would fit comfortably in a section on the snowclone page, making this page completely redundant. People adding to the list of "snowclones" are seriously misunderstanding what a snowclone is claimed to be; as per its definition, the variant/variable phrase has to be overused by journalists or writers to begin with. It's not a case of parameterising any old cliché, which is what people are doing here. If people want a list of formula-based clichés instead of a list of snowclones, the page should be renamed to reflect that, and a better definition of inclusion criteria should be devised. 62.31.67.29 13:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki the verifiable content to Wiktionary, delete the rest. It's a nice page and I'll be sad to see it go, but it's not particularly encyclopaedic. RobbieG 21:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Snowclone may be a neologism, but I'd argue that it's verifiable and notable enough to have an article (and others agree). I don't see why it isn't possible to verify every entry in the list with as many examples as deemed necessary. The term is new, but the verifiable linguistic phenomenon it describes is not. ―Wmahan . 03:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Snowclone is worth keeping (and it is), then this is relevant. ―Cayzle 10:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with snowclones. I just passed by this article and found it very helpful in describing what a snowclone is. I believe that it is a bit lengthy and much of it is unsourced. I think that a few sourced examples would be sufficient to get the point across on the snowclone page. I did find it a bit strange that this info had it's own page. Abby83 04:00, 2 June 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.