Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man bites dog trope

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 merge to Anti-cliché. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man bites dog trope

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscernible bogus article. Nuberger13 (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought that at first but [1] appears to suggest it is a figure of speech. There is also a reference here [2] Francium12 (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't TV Tropes. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does TV have to do with anything? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this site, a wiki about tropes, which indecently doesn't have an entry on this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX taken just a step further? — DroEsperanto (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Del337 I think this is a prank/joke set up by Chinese students who are barely proficient with English - read it, and note that it looks like it's gone through the Chinese->English translator verbatim. We've have problems with this before (like "murky buartsimmoon", or however it was spelled). This is obviously not a serious article. Nuberger13 (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of opportunity to expand it into an indiscrimate list accompanied by some original research on origins and significance, perhaps based on passing mentions in trivial third party sources. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title needs works but under a better title, such as Comic inversion, there is ample scope for improvement, per our editing policy. Title changes are made by move, not deletion, and so no admin action is required. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to anti-cliche. Much of this would be useful in that article, which has a better title. Besides, as illustrated by the existing article man bites dog (journalism), this phrase has been popularly used for decades to describe an unusual news story. Mandsford (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anti-cliché per Mandsford. This could be a new section there (though the language does need cleaning up, as noted by Nuberger13). Cnilep (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford. Agree that there is some cleaning to be done, but a merger to Anti-cliché seems to be the best option. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No good GHits and nothing in news, books, or scholar. The examples may be worth adding to another article, but there's no indication that this trope has ever been called the "man bites dog trope" by anyone except the article creator. — DroEsperanto (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into one of the above articles. Francium12's sources seem legit, but since it seems to be basically the same as one of the above (or a subset thereof) it might be better off as a section of one of those articles. If that section gets large enough it can be split off into its own article again. — DroEsperanto (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Anti-cliché per Mansford. This is the best alternative to deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2009 (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.