Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonus round

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 Keep (NAC) Dr. Meh 23:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus round

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

Article is full of original research and contains no references. The article is not inclusive of all aspects of a "bonus round" and the topic does not specifically need its own article since all game show-related articles describe bonus rounds specific to that show within their own articles. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this article does not meet the criteria for notability. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, non-notable, destined to be nothing more than an amalgamated description of the bonus rounds in various game shows. Propaniac (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Still not the greatest topic, but the article has been improved enough that I'd just as soon keep it. Propaniac (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Sources can be added (to at least some parts of the article) and the article can be renovated. This article talks about the general aspect of the game and what it involves, not specific "end games" or "bonus rounds" (whose objectives vary from show to show and are described in their own game show-related articles). At the very least, it can be merged with the general game show article. The list that was included previously with this article was justifiably removed, as it could indeed be endless; although a shorter list to give readers a general idea of what bonus rounds are and how they vary would be useful, this can be maintained through patrol. I'll keep you posted as I add sources, and see if that satisfies the process. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Update — Well, I've added a couple of sources. I did remove some statements I viewed as original research, kept some explanatory statements and placed inline citations. By all means, this is not a complete revision as I see it, but its a start to making this a more noteworthy article. Again, failing a keep verdict, I'd suggest merging it with a redirect, and then putting the concepts in the main game show article. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep - Unsourced does not mean deleted. It means there should be sources added. I think this is clearly a notable topic, as it's a key element in a significant number of Game Shows and Games in general to the point where it often is a defining element. TheHYPO (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Mostly original research. Notable enough to be included if the show has a bonus round, but under a subsection in that show's article, not as an article itself.--LAAFan^sign _review 04:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — To clarify, this article is abot the concept of bonus rounds. Yes, each article about a given game show has details about that show's bonus round if notable or otherwise pertinent to the article, but there still needs to be an article explaining what a bonus round is. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
  - Comment — Is there still a necessity for a separate article? If the article is being/has been improved, can this info be condensed and merged into the game show article and redirected? Sottolacqua (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment — See Milowent's comments for the response, which I agree with. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh, barbarian 11:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with Briguy52748: "To clarify, this article is abot the concept of bonus rounds. Yes, each article about a given game show has details about that show's bonus round if notable or otherwise pertinent to the article, but there still needs to be an article explaining what a bonus round is." --Milowent (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge this into general game show coverage or the articles for the specific game shows. Not every aspect or subtobic of a notable subject needs an independent article. This is obviously a judgment call, because I agree that the Overtime (sports) article is absolutely deserving of its independence. There are several grounds for making a distinction, such as the news notability of prominent sporting contests with lengthy overtimes. Ben Kidwell (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been involved in brokering competing camps on the Quiz bowl article. You cannot imagine how many articles deal with the concept of bonus rounds, so that's why I think a separate article is worthwhile organizationally. --Milowent (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with addition of sources. The article now discusses the concept in an encyclopedic fashion, with sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Game Show. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:04, 2 October 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.