Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal or No Deal (US) models


 * 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. –xenotalk 02:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Deal or No Deal (US) models

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced & unencyclopedic list mostly consisting of redirects-to-self. –xenotalk 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * N.B. I have nominated the 84 redirects to this article for deletion as well, interested parties may wish to see Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 30. –xenotalk 17:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Perhaps with a small rewrite it would be fine. I find the information interesting and certainly notable. If the article was rewritten and better organized it would be just fine. I put the information in chronological order and it makes the article a little more readable — ASPENSTI — TALK  — CONTRIBUTIONS  15:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could help me understand why this information (in such fine detail) is notable? –xenotalk 15:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To start it lists people who are notable enough to have their own articles (Most of them). These models are reoccurring talent on the show, not just nameless extras. I agree with you that the article doesn't have enough references but that doesn't stop you from putting in some. Using a simple google search I was able to find oodles of information on these women. The models were common discussion on the TV show if you've ever watched it. This television program has run for more than one season, I would say any details to it are notable. There are certainly more useless lists on Wikipedia. I think it should be kept. I wouldn't even suggest a merge with Deal or No Deal main article because there is enough information in this article to merit its existence. I'm only one opinion, thats what these discussions are for, I'll allow others to weigh in on the topic.  — ASPENSTI — TALK  — <small style="font-family:wingdings; color:red;">CONTRIBUTIONS  15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, the ones with articles deserve a mention in the prose of Deal or No Deal (US), but this list is far too detailed. I'm not sure why it is important that Model X held case 26 this week but case 13 the next. This is far too detailed for an encyclopedia. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 15:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think its excessive to complain that the article has "too much" information. Clean up the article I agree, add more references I agree, deleting it isn't necessary. I will add reference and clean up tags to it. — ASPENSTI — <small style="font-family:wingdings; color:red;">TALK  — <small style="font-family:wingdings; color:red;">CONTRIBUTIONS  17:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How does it harm wikipedia to have this information listed, despite it being long? --Milowent (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOHARM. It doesn't necessarily harm Wikipedia, but it doesn't particularly reflect well either to have a list of this nature. It is excessive fancruft. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 17:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ITSCRUFT.B.Wind (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM specifically says that harmless information shouldn't be kept if its unreliable or has no citation, yes this article has little citation but the subject matter has plenty of info surrounding it only no one has yet taken the time to source the topic. — ASPENSTI — <small style="font-family:wingdings; color:red;">TALK  — <small style="font-family:wingdings; color:red;">CONTRIBUTIONS  18:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't been presented with an argument to convince me that this information is in any way encyclopedic. It belongs on a fansite. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 18:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortunately for me and the rest of the Wikipedia community I don't have to convince you. You posted this up for an AFD discussion, so far the consensus agrees with me. Again, I'm not trying to defend the article, I agree its in need of repair but this discussion isn't about repair its about notability and a number of other users agree with me that the article has worth. — ASPENSTI — <small style="font-family:wingdings; color:red;">TALK  — <small style="font-family:wingdings; color:red;">CONTRIBUTIONS  18:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, and WP:SOFIXIT are not valid arguments for either keeping or deleting an argument, and the amount of effort in delinking is actually less than the amount of effort to create the Wikilinks in the first place. Being in need of cleanup is an insufficient grounds for deletion; so is a lack of citations. Clearly there is an abundance of third-party coverage in reliable sources independent of the collective. B.Wind (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – not notable in the Wikipedia sense as far as I can tell. The article is mostly just a list of people, most of whom are not notable (the blue links are deceptive, almost all of them are redirects back here). I doubt this article could be reconstructed from reliable secondary sources. Right now it's completely unsourced. Rees11 (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * keep - Being a model on the show is a "big deal." This is demonstrated from the fact, that there are lots of news stories that talk about so-and-so and say something like "the New or No Deal model" - if it wasn't a big deal, they would say "the model" instead of specifying the show. Secondly, some very rough searching shows that a fair number are notable, although it is true few have articles at this time.  Finally, and most importantly, the models as a group have received significant RS coverage as shown by this search.  The problems with the article (excessive detail, insufficient prose) can be solved via normal editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Show itself, and the use of models, is notable. Having this compilation of info as a separate article is logical.--Milowent (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as notable as Barker's Beauties. Some of them are, in fact, notable independently of the show. In addition, the collective "Deal or No Deal Models" has also been used in advertisements of off-television appearances. Nomination is essentially that of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - in fact, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC points to the same essay. Circular wikilinks can be removed at zero cost to the article and Wikipedia. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we do keep it, I'd like to see the self-redirects fixed. That's how I got pulled into this discussion. It would be tedious to do manually, what do you suggest? Rees11 (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The self-redirects will be fixed if they are deleted in the RfD I've just filed. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 00:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. One of those things people inexplicably want to look up. The kind of question that drove library reference desk volunteers crazy. And a few of them do have enough individual coverage to be notable, though not very many. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - "Deal or No Deal" is an extremely popular show BECAUSE of the Models - not it's content. People who seek information about "Deal or No Deal" are almost always seeking information about the Models - not about how the game is played. Glenn Francis (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Rees11 (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Wikipedia article traffic statistics shows this article is a winner - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Thaddeus. Joe Chill (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of above, including my comment above. B.Wind (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.