Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check Game

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 with no prejudice against merging or renominating less notable entries. There appears to be a rough consensus that at least some of the material in some of these articles should be retained. Obviously, there is a wide variety of quality in both content and notability here and some (or even many) articles probably shouldn't be retained as stand-alone articles. However, a mass AfD like this can not accurately judge consensus on individual articles, and thus should only be evaluated as a question of the general principle: "should articles like this exist at all?" I see no consensus that they shouldn't, so this AfD must close as keep. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

Check Game[edit]

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

Unsourced article filled with trivia related to a specific audience that perpetually keeps these articles as fansites. As another similar AFD states, "No way could any of this indiscriminate trivia ever be sourced. Survived a bundle AFD in 2007 with no consensus. Tagged for lack of sources since 11/07 with no improvement." Sottolacqua (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fit the criteria above and are unsourced or use fansites as only sources:[reply]

Merge all to List of The Price Is Right pricing games, they don't deserve individual articles, however a bundled article could possibly be sourced UltraMagnus^speak 21:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the entire lot please and quick. This is not encyclopedic, it contributes zilch to humanities base of knowledge, and I really vote delete rarely. Merge under the Price is Right article if you absolutely have to, but that is a waste of space as well. Turqoise127 (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced indiscriminate trivia. Reyk _YO! 21:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unsourced fancruft. There is absolutely no way that any of the information could be sourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The games are already listed in the List of The Price Is Right pricing games. This is one of the most famous game shows of all times and the games made up a significant and much discussed part of it. I can't see how deleting these articles improves the encyclopedia. On the contrary I think there is substantial interest in the show as it's been on for decades and readers are likely to benefit from coverage of the major components. If there were fewer games a merge would be appropriate, and some of the more minor ones can certainly be merged, but the bigger ones are fine as sub articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to single The Price Is Right pricing games article. ^Bongo_matic 22:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; it doesn't seem appropriate to have a Wikipedia article for every pricing game on The Price Is Right. I disagree with the characterizations of the material as "fancruft", but altogether they do comprise a somewhat less than discriminate collection of information, and individually, one one game has received significant enough coverage to qualify it as notable. Robert K S (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per UltraMagnus. Tavix | Talk 23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unbundle because not all of those need to be deleted. I'll run with delete all those with "(pricing game)", "(retired pricing game)", or "$" signs in the article name as fundamentally unfit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia—but that still leaves a substantial number to consider separately, because many are plausible search terms that ought to redirect somewhere. "Check Game", "Check-Out", "Clearance Sale" etc. are all things that someone looking for useful information might type in the search box.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Fail notability. Lack independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of each game. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory, and is not an indoscriminate collection of information. Edison (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only — If we're going to delete the individual articles, then keep the List of The Price is Right pricing games (where in that afd debate, there are several keep votes as well as some arguing to delete) and give a brief description of each game (which at this point should suffice). Also, redirects are in order, so that someone typing in — say, Plinko — into the search box will not be confused. He'll still get what info he's looking for, just in a different place and in a different format. I also recommend transwiki-ing the articles, but that's a discussion for the list article. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
Merge to list: There may be information within these articles which would be valuable in the list. For example I just dug up a Baltimore Sun article where the authors took the time to rework the games into actual finance practices in honour of Bob Barker's retirement or somesuch. here. - BalthCat (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as separate articles. I agree with ChildofMidnight, but strongly disagree with Turqoise127. Wasn't the point of the separate articles to make sure that a single article on all of the show's pricing games wasn't overloaded? And all that info is sourced, but nobody wants to believe TPIRFanSteve. Daniel Benfield (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TPIRFanSteve's sources are self-published sources and are part of original, non-sourced and non-verified research. Golden-Road.net, as a fansite, does not meet the criteria of a reliable third-party publication. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should point out that most of the other individual pricing games not listed in this afd are headed for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all pricing game articles. No evidence that any of them are independently notable, and a merge would also not be appropriate as (a) there is no evidence of their notability even within the context of The Price Is Right, and (b) they do not meaningfully contribute to an understanding of the topic "The Price Is Right". - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plinko, otherwise Merge to list with Redirects If a person is looking for info on a specific game, a page listing all the games with descriptions would suffice. Plinko is easily the show's most famous game, and is THE game most synonymous with the show, so I have substantially less disagreement with it's continued existence. DJBullfish 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of The Price Is Right pricing games. These are absolutely not notable on their own. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plinko and clean up the page, and merge the rest into List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Reach Out to the Truth (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record, I actually have virtually no doubts as to the legitimacy of the source (the Golden-Road.net fansite) for information presented. I just don't think that the overwhelming majority of the games are, outside of the game show universe, noteworthy of their own articles. I tend to be minimalist on such things - it to me is the equivalent of giving every match variation in pro wrestling *it's* own page. What you wind up seeing with the latter is a few of the most interesting and noteworthy (IE: Hell in a Cell get their own articles while the rest go into a more broad-based list. Something similar would seem apt for the pricing games.
- "I just don't think that the overwhelming majority of the games are, outside of the game show universe, noteworthy of their own articles." Does this logic apply to certain game shows, like The Big Showdown or Call My Bluff, then? Since both games (among many others – The Money Maze, 3 for the Money, and 100 Grand come to mind) were relatively short-lived and virtually unknown outside of the "game show universe", should they be deleted as well? No, they shouldn't, because somebody remembers these shows and wants to find out more about them. Same goes for the pricing games – even the shorter-lived ones, such as Professor Price and Telephone Game, have those who want to know the who-where-and-why about them. Basically, if we can have huge detailed articles dedicated to each and every one of the 236 episodes of some 1980s sitcom, then why can't we have 103 articles about the games used on a long-running game show with tons of history both on-camera and off? Daniel Benfield (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your argument still does not address why all of these need to have separate individual articles. The vast majority of articles containing synopses of television shows place the synopses within one sole article for that series, not individual articles for each episode. This is not an argument of whether or not someone will remember these games; the argument is whether or not these are noteworthy enough to merit their own articles, in addition to whether or not the information contained within them can be legitimately sourced. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firstly, addressing the argument of Mr. Benfield: Except that Punch a Bunch isn't a television It's one sub-element of a television show. You mentioned articles for episodes of obscure television shows - fact is I oppose the existence of most of those articles too into an episode list. I'm a huge believer in simplicity. When it comes to how to present information on the site, I personally prefer as few articles as possible. There's no need to say in 104 pages what you can just as easily say in two. And Sottolacqua is quite correct: The vast majority of shows' episodes ARE condensed into episode lists, and those that aren't are probably an AfD process away from the same fate. DJBullfish 04:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, with comment. Yes, it may seem somewhat overdetailed in the large scope of things, but remember this: Wikipedia has full articles on every Family Guy, South Park and The Simpsons episode, regardless of how notable or well-sourced they are (most of the episode titles aren't even known to the general public). I fail to see how having articles for each pricing game on this show is different, considering that each one has been played multiple times, and I don't think it's a good idea to be biased in favor of scripted programming. (For the record, I favor eliminating those articles, too.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination states boldly that "No way could any of this indiscriminate trivia ever be sourced". However in just a minute or so of searching, I find a source which discusses the details of these pricing games: Daytime Television Game Shows and the Celebration of Merchandise: The Price is Right. The nomination is thus proven false - a clear failure of our deletion and editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That source has a copyright of 1993, after which 30 pricing games listed above debuted:

Balance Game
Barker's Markers/Make Your Mark
Bonkers
Clearance Sale
Coming or Going
Cover Up
Easy as 123
Flip Flop
Fortune Hunter
Freeze Frame

Gas Money
Half Off
It's in the Bag
Joker
Let 'em Roll
Line 'em Up
Magic Number
More or Less
On the Spot
One Wrong Price

Pass the Buck
Pocket Change
Push Over
Shopping Spree
Split Decision
Stack the Deck
Step Up
That's Too Much
Time is Money
Triple Play

Your source is not directly applicable to most of these articles being nominated for deletion. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination wants to delete all of the games - every one of them. No careful analysis of each of them has been done - it's just an indiscriminate bonfire based upon a false premise. If you want to do the careful work of checking each of them out against the available sources then please go ahead and get back to us after the proper process described at WP:BEFORE has been completed. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trivia in question is statements such as these:

Cliff Hangers: Cliff Hangers was one of five pricing games introduced in the fifth and final nighttime season hosted by Dennis James – the other four being Danger Price, Dice Game, Hurdles, and Three Strikes. It also made appearances on the final nighttime show in 1980 and both subsequent syndicated versions (see below).
Danger Price: The 1980s nighttime version hosted by Tom Kennedy used both sets of Danger Price, the change coming near the end of the run.
Dice Game: On January 8, 1988 the game offered its last car priced under $6,667, after which the five-digit version became permanent. In September 1988, at the beginning of Season 17, the "Deluxe" title was dropped.
Double Prices: According to former producer Roger Dobkowitz, Double Prices has been played more often than any other pricing game (but by a slim margin).
Five Price Tags: The correct price of the car was originally an orange version of the price tag in front of it. This was changed to the current "WIN!" tag sometime in the 1990s.

...et cetera. Most of this is superfluous information that adds no understanding about the subject. It's minutia.

Additionally, coming late to the discussion, you've missed a large argument throughout this nomination in that none of these articles are notable enough to warrant separate pages. They can all easily be edited down and merged into The Price Is Right pricing games. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wanting to merge all these articles then you've come to the wrong place - AFD is for deletion in which none of the original is retained. Please see WP:MERGE for the correct process. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This started as an AfD, but the emerging (no pun intended) consensus seems to be Merge. Another editor and I have been adding brief summaries to the List article, as suggested. JTRH (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only purpose of AFD is to determine whether an admin should be pressing his delete button for the nominated articles. If we are agreed that deletion is not appropriate then the nominator should withdraw his nomination and a merge discussion be started. This should be a separate discussion because it would involve editors of the target article(s) who may not yet be aware of this matter as those articles were not included in this bundle. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which "target articles" you're referring to that "were not included in this bundle." Some of the pricing game articles have been AfD'd separately, and some of those have already closed with a Delete. With the exception of one of the major authors of these pages, who hasn't responded to my e-mail notifying him of this, I think this AfD discussion has included everyone who might have an interest. If the consensus here is a Merge, there's no reason to re-open it instead of just going with the decision here. JTRH (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some, this AFD runs afoul of the Pokémon test. While I can say that some of the "famous" and classic games like Plinko and Cliff Hangers (come on, who doesn't love Yodel Guy?), most of it...why does such a stupid game as say, one of those games they use to fill up time from bigger ones, even have articles? ViperSnake151 Talk 15:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many things nominated at once! Many games from the Price is Right, which are not found anywhere else, should probably be merged together. If it doesn't fit in the main article, then have a side article listing just all the games, provided no detail is lost. Anything played for more than thirty years, decides a thorough encyclopedic entry about it so an interested reader can fully understand it. Dream Focus 18:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the colonel. Nice job searching for sources. Ikip (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one source that doesn't apply to 1/3 of the articles that are being nominated. Additionally, that source still doesn't address the trivial content in most of these articles, nor does it validate the notability requirements. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A source doesn't validate notability requirements? Removing trival content is done by removing that content, not deleting a notable article. So nominate 1/3 of the articles that are not mentioned by the source. this is like nominating notable article 1, notable article 2, non-notable article 1 and saying notable article 1 and 2 should be deleted because of non-notable article. Ikip (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of these articles are notable on their own. At most they should be merged into List of The Price Is Right pricing games Sottolacqua (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:Showcase Showdown, Talk:The Showcase (The Price Is Right), Talk:The Price Is Right (U.S. game show), and Talk:One Bid page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Note I notified the 50+ editors who participated in the AFD two years ago, excluding only those editors who have retired or who have had their page blanked. Ikip (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or include all pertinent information (including but not limited to gameplay, rule changes, set changes, and lifespan) on each game in the list of games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallpriest9 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most to a single article about the pricing games and later de-merge games which would meet notability requirements if the show itself were not notable. There may be a few on the list which are part of Americana, but certainly not most. Do not delete content, but rather redirect all and lock the redirects, requiring a per-redirect deletion review to unlock it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Derivative articles for additional guidance on sub-articles of notable topics. "Price Is Right pricing games" probably is a suitable sub-article, as might be a handful or less of the actual games. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:16, 16 November 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.