Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.


 * 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 merge to Monopoly (game).  Sandstein  07:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Declined PROD. WP:NOTDICT. All sources I could find, including those in the article, use the phrase (see use–mention distinction). Content cited to ref 7 is even original research. w umbolo  ^^^  19:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It's easy enough to find a source such as the Encyclopedia of Play in Today's Society. The worst case would be merger to Monopoly (game), which we would prefer to deletion per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability standards met as evidenced by mention in multiple independent reliable sources. (Creator‘s vote) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Google book search results indicate many more instances of mention and various nuances and forms with whose help the article could be expanded. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Perhaps the "merge" option deserves closer examination that might lead to a clear consensus.
 * Merge Keep – as with Chance and Community Chest cards, Monopoly has major cultural significance, and as a result this expression is clearly notable. There are plenty of sources available to expand this topic, and there is no deadline to do so.  Brad  v  05:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Changing to merge, per comments below and the result of this related AfD. There is potential for both of these topics to have improved coverage in the Monopoly article, especially since we are not as adverse to long articles as we used to be. Brad  v 🍁 19:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per Andrew Davidson and Bradv. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Did anyone look at the sources, or even the Encyclopedia of Play in Today's Society? The lede, become widely used in popular culture to describe an action forced upon a person that has only negative results, is cited to two sources, one of which I don't have access to but is titled "Credit Repair Kit for Dummies," and the other one only uses it in a sentence in an academic article. Neither back up the quotation. It continues: no source in the article talks about the phrase in any sort of meaningful or substantive context. This fails WP:NOT as we're not a guide to jargon, and I don't see this passing WP:GNG since none of these sources talk about the phrase in any sort of significant coverage apart from just mentioning that it's associated with the game. I propose we add a single sentence to the article discussing how some of its phrases have become incorporated into real life. SportingFlyer  talk  14:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge Have to agree with above, WP is not a dictionary or place for simple phrases with little to no major coverage. Add to the monopoly page is fitting, but its own page is a overreach. ContentEditman (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. There is one line of "meaning" in the article, with three citations none of which say anything more. Unless there is a substantial discussion of the topic in the source, it doesn't count for WP:GNG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge with article on Monopoly (game). Vorbee (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Monopoly - none of the references are convincing that the phrase is notable. They aren't about the phrase, they simply use it (or describe it in-passing as a cliche).  The phrase is well-known, which (barely) justifies the redirect. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Monopoly (game). bd2412  T 23:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. What Andrew D. said. There are ample sources for the topic out there, , . Kerberous (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Monopoly (game). Does not satisfy GNG on its own. Also inclusion in a very specific encyclopedia does not mean automatic inclusion in wikipedia. Lots of people fail  to undersand that.--1l2l3k (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Limited merge to Monopoly (game). Not notable as a phrase other than in conjunction with the game.  -- RoySmith (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2018 (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.