Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of snowclones

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. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of snowclones

WTF? This is in no way, shape or form an encyclopedia article. I can't even begin to say just what it is. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Please also see related discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowclone (2nd nomination) — NM Chico24 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOLE completely sums up my views on this one. And yes, WP:HOLE is generally used for biographies, but the point is that I have no clue in hell what anything in this article is saying. -- Kicking222 02:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Dionyseus 02:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary list. Doesn't make much sense. — NM Chico24 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Patent nonsense -Elmer Clark 03:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looked like nonsense at first to me also, but then I finally wrapped my head around it: it's a neologism to describe common phrases that often get variations made of them, like "Does the Pope (blank) in the woods?". However, by rendering the list in faux-algebraic format, and ordering the examples in chronological order throughout history, the author of the article makes it extremely and unnecessarily hard to read. Having said all that, I still say Delete. wikipediatrix 03:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Vast list of OR. Crufty danishes and melted gummy worms. SynergeticMaggot 03:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the best to Snowclone and delete the rest. The existance of this page didn't do much to help Snowclone's case I don't think. Irongargoyle 04:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete double you tea eff. See above. will381796 05:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the examples of snowclone in the list are neither "patent nonsense" nor a "hole in the ground" -- just because a subject is unfamiliar to some readers does not invalidate it. This list article has been referenced in numerous places across the Internet. Please see, for example: Literal minded blog; Tlogmer's Wikipedia blog; Crayz.org; Cheek blog; Aidan McGlynn blog. See also the extensive discussion of the term's origin at the UPenn linguist's Language Log It would not be appropriate to (re)merge into snowclone, as this article was, in fact, split off from there precisely because it had grown too long. Obliga-note: I was the one who reorganised this list into its present chronology; this was intended to present its information in a more encylopaedically accessible form, by allowing it to be verified and found more easily. Another option, organising by source or media (i.e. print, film, TV, advertising, music, etc.), was not attempted because at the time, there were far fewer entries. Chronology makes sense to show (1) longevity of certain elements; (2) development over time; (3) connection to historical (pop)culture. I've attempted to regularly prune the less notable examples, but likely it could do with a bit more trimming, and clearer explanation of the term snowclone at the head.--Leflyman^Talk 17:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not very compelling sources, especially when one of them is a Wikipedia blog. wikipediatrix 13:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, providing Snowclone survives its own current AfD nomination. If there is to be an article on snowclones, it makes sense to provide a list of them for illustrative and explanatory purposes. The list shouldn't be (or try to be) exhaustive, and it should be sourced as much as possible (which would in practice limit it to only the most notable examples), but it does seem to me worth having. I admit the list could be merged with Snowclone, but that seems like an unnecessary combination of two different types of article to me. (Disclaimer: I've added one or two to this list myself.) Terraxos 03:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Leflyman and Terraxos. The Strength of the arguments for keeping both this list and the associated Snowclone article are quite persuasive in both cases and have changed my mind. Irongargoyle 04:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Leflyman and Terraxos, assuming that Snowclone passes AfD. —Aristotle 10:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are serious problems with the list as it stands, but it is certainly not "nonsense." I don't even see how someone could mistake it for nonsense. --Iustinus 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merging whatever is salvageable. Deltabeignet 22:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read the Snowclones article, came here, read the list, understood at once what was going on. The algebraic format is perfectly comprehensible. The list is far from perfect (eg., off the top of my head I can add "See A B" from the old "See Dick Run" story books; and "Can you say X?" from the Mr. Rogers TV show) but the concept is appropriate.Network20 22:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also as the two above. It makes an excellent companion to the snowclone article.
Keep per above. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Eyu100 23:05, 24 August 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.