Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal or No Deal (United States) 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  06:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Deal or No Deal (United States) models

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Overly detailed fancruft. Not a single source to be found, and I can't think of something that would source it. Way too much trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete In 2007 this article could probably be tolerated. In 2011 when the show is long canceled and nobody except the fanboys who remember when a set bulb went out, then model 21 held suitcase 12 instead in episode S329F4 actually care to look up the names, it reads as an article that is just so long and dull that it really isn't needed anymore. Unsourced, unneeded and definitely leeching into TLDR territory.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Notability is not temporary if this article was viable in 2007 it's viable forever. However whatever (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm trying to restrain myself from commenting on the type of person that would know this much detail about background eye candy in a game show, much less come here to write about it. Anyways...there are some interviews with individual models and such to be found online, but little that addresses the group of models as a whole, other than on NBC (primary source), blog-like entries, and ebaumsworld image galleries. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 17:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted for more discussion per Deletion review/Log/2011 July 17. Please close no earlier than 2 August. Courcelles 17:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination rationale is plainly defective, and based on clear factual errors. As was quite properly reaffirmed in the recent "Ravians" DRV, when we're dealing with a list-type article where the inclusion criterion isn't negative or otherwise contentious, it's OK for sourcing (for notable entries) to be included in the primary articles rather than the list article. And the nominator's statement that "I can't think of something that would source it" is without merit, particularly since a cursory Google search turns up this page which together with its subpages verifies most of the basic information involved. Moreover, I spot-checked about half a dozen of the unlinked names (based on the copy mirrored here, and came up with GNews sources verifying every one of them. So the "no sourcing" argument, the only potentially valid reason for deletion, fails on its face. Some of such GNews hits which mentioned the TV show were quite recent, indicating that the show has embedded itself in popular culture and reinforcing the notability-is-not-temporary principle that should negate one of the delete !votes. The obsessively detailed trivia can be handled, as appropriate, by routine editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per the argument by Aaron Brenneman on his talk page:
 * There's no debate that there are sources for the individual models that say that they did in fact appear on the show, but there are no sources about the topic of Deal-or-no-deal models treated as a whole. This idea is also wrapped up in the "one event" sub-section of biographies of living persons. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Article meets WP:LISTPURP. However whatever (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Deal or No Deal is clearly a notable gameshow, but I see nothing notable about this aspect of the game. The models' sole purpose is to open the briefcases, but at no point does the program focus on the person opening it; pretty much all the attention is given to the number revealed. A list of contestants would be more reasonable, since each show gives far more attention to the contestants than the people holding the briefcases. The only source in the article is to the gameshow's website, and while it provides reasonably in-depth interviews with each of the models, it is not an independent source. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: A list of contestants would probably not be viable under the WP:BLP1E rules. The models on the other hand are mostly recurring and most of them have their own Wikipedia articles. However whatever (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:LISTPURP ("lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists") and WP:LISTN ("discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", e.g.,, , , ). TJRC (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes Askmen, a photo gallery of topless ladies or an obviously fan-made page reliable? The Maxim article is a good addition, but it won't add itself. YOU add it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't expect to be editing the article; I don't have a lot of interest in it. The DRV for this happened to be on the same page as another DRV that involved me, so I took note of it.  I'm not making any commentary about article content here; I'm making comment about notability, which is the criterion for the AFD.  Add the source, don't add the source, it's all the same to me.  TJRC (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: I suppose arguments can be made about whether list should be limited to "notable" models or whatever, but its a useful notable list.  The babes were the whole purpose of the show, I thought.--Milowent • talkblp-r  21:08, 29 July 2011 (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.