Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wheel of Fortune puzzle categories

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 --Stephen 22:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wheel of Fortune puzzle categories[edit]

List of Wheel of Fortune puzzle categories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Pure unsourced, original research. The puzzle categories of Wheel of Fortune are not notable, and without sources, can never be verified as being accurately noted. Where are the "original" categories coming from? Retired? Who says? Can it be sourced? Are the WoF puzzle categories being given any significant coverage in any media? Considering its been unreferenced since July, I'm thinking not. Collectonian (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was spun off from a space-consuming list on the main page about the show, with the goal of reducing the size of the main page. Although I'm the one who moved it and am thus listed as the original author, I didn't create the original list of categories. I think it's relevant information to an article about the show. I'm not sure how to address the sourcing issue except that it can be verified by observation of current and past episodes of the show. JTRH (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, does pure description qualify as original research? JTRH (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JTRH is quite right: the shows themselves are the sources and a description is not original research. In this respect this is barely different from any of the many TV series episode guides which Wikipedians are so fond of creating. Ros0709 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't an episode list, it is an OR creation synthesized from personal observation with no sourcing for the claims made. A properly done episode list has sourcing, which this doesn't. Please provide episode references where it is explicitly stated that category X is now retired rather than simply rarely used. Please provide episode references for the declaration that a category is an "original" one, for the first use of every category, that a category is still active, and for the Really Long Title one. Collectonian (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are really easy references for it: the episodes themselves. Obviously, it's a terrible bother to go citing individual Wheel of Fortunes episodes for categories, but it's doable if we want to get perfectly technical about it. matt91486 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, citations are required. The factual information has been questioned, so the onus is now on those claiming the list is accurate to provide verification for it. Collectonian (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did I say citations weren't required? I said that citations can be gotten from a very obvious source. This should be tagged with needing sources, not deleted for it. We know what the sources are, they're just difficult to properly mark down. matt91486 (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted in my original statements, it has been tagged for needing sources since July 2007. None have been added, given the implication that there are none. Either way, the referencing isn't the only problem. There is also the issue of notability. There is nothing notable about the categories and this is just a list of trivia and fancruft. Collectonian (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, I created the page but I'm not the original author of the material. I certainly don't have time to watch several hundred episodes of the show to determine original and final air dates for various categories, if that's a serious request on your part. I maintain my position that this is a simple descriptive list which complements the main show article, but I'm not going to argue the point further. JTRH (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly with JTRH. And if you really believe that just because no one happens to have done the work to source it, that means there aren't any, then you have a lot more faith in the tenacity of Wikipedia editors than I do. I know I personally wouldn't go through the articles needing sources category and happen to pick out one that required watching dozens of hours of Wheel of Fortune to properly source. Just because no one's done it, even in a period of 9 months, doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means it's not easy to do. matt91486 (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a regular Wheel watcher, I can agree with JTRH and Matt91486 that this page is not beyond hope. Just because nobody's tried to source it in 9 months doesn't mean it's not notable; in fact, that smacks of WP:NOEFFORT. While it may not be easy to source this list to various eps, it certainly wouldn't be impossible by any means. The categories are a very important part of Wheel; I'm sure there are some sources out there somewhere regarding them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of you have yet to address the more important issue...notability. Are the categories notable per WP:N? Do they receive extensive "real-world" coverage outside of the game itself and discussions by fans? Have academic works or even third-party newspapers or other reliable sources discussed the topic and specific categories? Collectonian (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you find this less objectionable if it were contained within the main show article? It's a simple description of a feature of the show. I doubt very seriously that anyone's ever written an academic journal article (or even a newspaper article) on Wheel of Fortune puzzle categories; that doesn't mean that this description doesn't add relevant information to the main article, of which it's intended as an adjunct. JTRH (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it were in the main article, I would feel that it was cruft that should be cut. It simply isn't necessary to give such detailed description, nor does it add any truly relevant information.Collectonian (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the information in this articles does not have to be notable, it's obviously a sub-article of Wheel of Fortune (US game show) (and merging this into that very long article would make it even longer). The show is the source for the article. --Pixelface (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As a subarticle of Wheel of Fortune (US game show), it falls under different notability guidelines (specifically, none). The lack of citations is a reason for cleanup, not delete, when the sources so obviously exist. As such, there is no valid rationale for deletion. -- Masterzora (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I commented above, but didn't actually vote. JTRH (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Wheel of Fortune (US game show) - no particular reason for a spin-off article. - fchd (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd just like to point out that this isn't a separate article; it's a subarticle. Specifically, the main article is long enough that certain less essential pieces (like this) are better off in a subarticle to reduce clutter on the main page. Standards for a subarticle are (and should be) different from standards from full articles. -- Masterzora (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, this article has to be able to stand or fall on its own merits. Notability for the list of puzzle categories must be verifiable. If the main article is too long, and there is a need to "reduce clutter", it's generally a sign that stuff needs to be pruned, rather than shifted elsewhere. - fchd (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When is this AfD supposed to close? JTRH (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subarticles have to be about a notable subtopic, else it makes no sense to turn it into a subarticle. If the subtopic is too long for the main article, but isn't notable enough to support a separate article, trim, don't spinoff. There is no reason to exclude subarticles from our notability guidelines. In this case, if the puzzle categories themselves are not the subject of reliable, independent sources (and there is no evidence in the article or this AFD that they are), then this article should be deleted, no matter how important WoF is, or how long the main article is. Fram (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Wheel_of_Fortune_puzzle_categories&oldid=1070794506"