Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of snowclones (3rd 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 delete. Nobody has produced an argument to defend the rank OR problems with this article. Given the keep comments are all (bar one) "per Bikeable", who subsequently changed his argument to "merge", there is little in favour of keeping. And Gandalf61's argument is not convincing. Asserting something is not OR but failing to provide any evidence to back up that assertion is never convincing. Consensus - rooted in policy - is clearly to not retain this article. None of Wiktionary, Wikisaurus or Wikibooks would accept this as they do not want original research, so a transwiki is out (other wikiprojects are not our dumping grounds). There are already examples on the Snowclones article, so I don't think a merge is necessary, although I will userfy this article should someone really want some further examples in there (I would strongly suggest you'd be better finding referenced ones elsewhere, if any exist). Neil ☎ 09:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of snowclones

One big original research. The term "snowclone" is itself a frest 4-year old neologism, and this list is an unreferenced collection of things that fit the neologism, i.e., it is a wikipedian's conclusion taht they constitune slowclone, i.e., it is original research `'Míkka 05:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary the raw list. Merge into snowclone any that can be properly attested (any?) as an example. --Dhartung | Talk 15:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you want wiktionary to collect unreferenced garbage? Besides, wiktionary is a dictionary not a thesaurus.`'Míkka 15:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I am an eventualist? OK, then transwiki to Wikisaurus. Or if you're really, really picky, then Wikibooks, or the Annex. --Dhartung | Talk 19:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The list is poorly referenced, but could easily be restricted to those with sources. Snowclones have received a lot of attention of late in linguistic circles, and sources like the Language Log (written by linguists) are authoritative on such a topic. Needs trimming something terrible, though. bikeable (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please notice that I don't dispute the "snowclone" itself. I am disputing the list. We have lots of lingustic phenomena articles in wikipedia. We don't have List of synonyms (synonym), List of dangilng modifiers (dangling modifier), not even List of garden path sentences (for garden path sentence). Wikipedia started killing lists of trivia mercilessly. Wikipedia lists are mostly for navigation among articles and for small items that are notable but just to small to waste a separate page. Indiscriminate listcruft has long been frowned upon. `'Míkka 16:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I see what you mean. And there's still plenty of room in Snowclone for more examples, with good references. therefore, I am flip-flopping and now say merge. bikeable (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for bikeable's reasons. —Quasirandom 15:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Several most notable, discussed examples in the main article is sufficient to illustrate a linguistic notion. Judging from the list, there are hundreds of them, and people didn't even start adding references from other languages/cultures yet. The list serves no encyclopedic purpose. 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC) (incomplete sig by user:Mukadderat)
Comment: I fully understand that snowclone is a new, interesting observation in linguistics made by a person with some mathematical way of thinking. At the same time the concept is not crystallized enough. For example, "You are my X": "you are my sunshine", "you are my flower", and endless other metaphors. If you did deeper, the whole idea of language based on recognizable cliches. "Let's go X": "lets go shopping" "lets go home". The author of the notion made a cute observation, but there is unfinished works by experts, and it is too early to collect lists of what some anonymous wikipedians think to be this new flashy thingy. `'Míkka 22:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference better --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge; if that's impractical, then weak keep. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and source Examples illustrating the concept are useful for understanding it. —Quasirandom 04:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because (i) it is a useful navigational list; (ii) membership criteria is clear - it is obvious when a phrase is a snowclone; (iii) reason for nomination is not logical - a list is an extended category; adding articles to a category is not OR; so adding entries to a list is not OR; (iv) last AfD was less than 6 months ago and keep decision was unconditional. Could be trimmed back to entries with reference or underlying article. Gandalf61 10:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (i) navigational? we don't have separate articles for each snowclone (ii) "clear", "obvious" means original research. It is not at all clear (iii) list is not extended category. (iv) for 6 months the list did not become referenced non-OR. It was kept by ILIKEIT voting. "Could be trimmed back" means it was and will be a magnet for OR, because it is "clear" and "obvious" for some. `'Míkka 15:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response (ii) clear and obvious membership criteria means that no research is required to determine whether a phrase is a snowclone - it is immediately obvious from the definition; (iii) WP:CLS says that categories and lists are two (out of five) ways of grouping articles; (iv) previous keep decision was not conditional on any changes to the list - if you felt the decision to keep was incorrect or should have been conditional, you should have initiated a deletion review, not a new AfD. Gandalf61 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ii) "immediately obvious" is for you. I could have given you guys some slack if it were a well-established concept, but it is a neologism and I have no reason to believe that your opinion is valid, not to say mainstream (iii) "two ways of grouping articles" is not "list is an extended category". What is more, please explain which articles are grouped by the discussed list (iv) DRV is for restoring deleted pages. Previous nominations ignored the issue of Original Research. `'Míkka 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:DRV: "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions. This includes appeals to restore pages that have been deleted as well as appeals to delete pages which were not deleted after a prior discussion". And what do you mean by "you guys" ? You seem to be personalising this debate, which can only harm your case. Anyway, I have explained my position, so I am out of here. Gandalf61 20:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for both Gandalf61 and bikeable's reasons.--Databoybiz 16:25, 13 October 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.