Deletion of Video game item clichés

Comment: trivial information that lacks necessary sourcing, possible |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Correct, the article is not, in spite of comments above, sourced. And, also in spite of comments above, it continues to fail 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: WP:SYN makes a good argument against, but I think it's hard to argue that Video_game_item_clichés#Exploding_barrels isn't correct when it references so many games with exploding barrels, or that we're really drawing a new and spectacular conclusion because it isn't in the Times newspaper, or even a blog.  is something I'm reluctant to apply to an article that is a useful compilation and doesn't exactly warrant using the scientific method (as cliche can always be debated). I'm sure somebody will force me to find a nice anology
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: all |original research. I don't see how this could possibly be sourced without becoming an |unpublished synthesis of published material
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN)

Comment: People have already started adding references.  This is our chance for an encyclopedic treatment of the subject.  Let's jump on it.  Also per  - information and navigation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)