Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Price Is Right pricing games (2nd nomination)


 * 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. looks like there is a consensus for a list but not the standalone articles which can probably be redirected to the list per this discussion Spartaz Humbug! 17:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

List of The Price Is Right pricing games
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This includes all the pricing games, but I don't want a massive bundle afd with some 103 articles. Anyway, these were all listed at Articles for deletion/The Price is Right pricing games back in 2007 with a result of no consensus, then kept in May 2009 because of a weak afd argument. Since either AFD, there has been no improvement whatsoever to any of the articles: no secondary sources, and I doubt there will ever be any outside a few fansites. Yes, I understand that the pricing games pretty much are the game, but do we really need 103 different articles on every single one, going into such indiscriminate, slobbering-fanboy detail? This ain't Golden Road.net, folks. If you can't source it, lose it. At the very minimum, I wouldn't mind a merge to a list that gives one-or-two-sentence summaries. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. There are no sources on this article, and it contributes nothing to the humanity base of knowledge. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or significantly compress and Merge into a much more reasonable article. At least some of this can presumably be sourced, as there are at least two printed books about The Price Is Right (Come On Down, ISBN 0061350117 and Priceless Memories, ISBN 1599951355), but a seperate article on every single game is way too much. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose for future merging of game articles. - We don't need to get rid of everything, as this would make a better place for the articles of the games. Mitch 32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I don't think even a merge would work, as there'd be no way to source even if they were clumped into one list. My main concern now is that none of this will ever be sourced, whether it's spread out or in one big list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't need to make it huge, it can always be done. Sourcing can be found. Mitch 32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Have any of the 103 games become essential standalone fixtures in U.S. popular culture? If not, then the list and, later, the articles on each of the 103 games can easily be deleted. Warrah (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Plinko might stand a chance, but otherwise I doubt any of these. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the list, delete the other articles I'm happy to say that there is now a | Price Is Right Wiki that can accomodate things of this nature.  As with the TV episode articles, the entertainment wikis have been an appropriate place to transfer fancruft.  This is proof positive that Wikipedia is different now than what it was in 2005.  I'd be happy to assist a TPIR fan in the process of transferring these 103 separate articles to a place where they can thrive.  Mandsford (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The information contained in this article, with links to descriptions of the more notable games, can be found on the show's Website here: http://www.priceisright.com/show. Would it be acceptable to replace the article with a link to that page from the appropriate point in the parent article on the show? Granted, the show Website is not an independent source, but we're talking about a simple descriptive list, not an analysis of any kind. JTRH (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The arguments for deletion above would be good arguments for deletion of individual articles about the games, but not for the list. What is not notable enough content for an article can be a suitable line of content in a more general list.       DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction: the argument that the games are not individually "essential standalone fixtures in U.S. popular culture" is not a reason for even the deletion of an an individual article. That criterion amounts to "famous" and notability is much less than famous. This is not an abridged encyclopedia.   DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG, I tend to agree with your opinion and commentary oh about 10 out of 10 times, and it is really, really rare that I sidestep my completely inclusionist views in line with setting up a very comprehensive knowledge base for humanity, but in this case this compares to me to doing an article about every single word puzzle on Wheel of Fortune, or that show with Whammys, doing an article on a description of the drawing of every single whammy ever... I have to agree with nominator's sentiments here; but do we really need 103 different articles on every single one, going into such indiscriminate, slobbering-fanboy detail? . Turqoise127 (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, Rename, and Merge this would be a good alternative target to merge all the pricing games into UltraMagnusspeak 11:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I can't blame my friend TenPound for not nominating 103 individual articles about games, it is somewhat awkward that what's nominated is the only one of the articles that one might want to keep -- i.e., a simple list of the games. I'll confess that I was confused and urged "delete all", although I don't see a problem with the one article that's actually nominated.  I've amended my !vote accordingly.  Mandsford (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep it is merely a list with links to the individual articles. 99.155.149.243 (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this list, but DELETE the individual articles. I do "want a massive bundle afd with some 103 articles". Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the list; at a bare minimum, a one- or two-sentence description of each game is entirely appropriate. I still would prefer to keep the articles themselves, since the whole idea behind creating them was to provide a more complete description of the rules, prizes offered, consumer knowledge required (i.e., small prizes or grocery items, where applicable), and - where applicable - place in pop culture. That said, I am happy that a TPiR wiki was started, so at the very least, if articles on the pricing games have not been created, if the individual pricing game articles are deleted on this wiki, then they can be transwikied there. Briguy52748 (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)]]
 * Keep "Weak prior AfD argument" does not comprise a strong AfD argument. Absent any solid reason for delerion, I default to Keep. Collect (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with merging: even if we do, how will we secondarily source this? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this article, delete individual articles and possibly merge into this article. Almost all of the individual articles are unsourced or use a fansite for a reference. No need to continually perpetuate these articles as fan pages here. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep!: One of the most notable gameshows in American history, and the games are probably more enduring than your average popstar. No reason to nuke the list. - BalthCat (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and delete individual articles. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:35, 10 November 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.