Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheel of Fortune (The wheel's configuration)


 * 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 as a perfectly good stub, and the main article is too large. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wheel of Fortune (The wheel's configuration)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Pure, unsourced fancruft. The configuration of the wheel on Wheel of Fortune is not notable, and seems to be pure OR. Not needed in the main article, nor here. Collectonian (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * delete This article does appear to be unsourced. Even if it were sourced, I would question the need for an article showing the configuration of the wheel. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm the author of the page. It was created to replace a bulky, space-consuming table on the main page about the show. It's a useful adjunct to the main page because it illustrates a relevant point of interest. And there's an extensive discussion of the sourcing on the article's talk page. JTRH (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll buy a E, and take a K, and then a P - it's a critical part of the game - and it's not original research since you can cite the SHOW ITSELF for references. ViperSnake151 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   —Collectonian (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * W_ak k__p. I'm not entirely certain that this could be sourced all that well (unless Brad ever finishes his WoF timeline), but the Wheel is a very important part of the show. Although I'm not 100% positive that it could be, I'm sure that a few sources could be dug up to verify the info here. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be an important part of the show, but is it notable enough to have its own article? Again, are there third-party, reliable sources that discuss the wheel itself in-depth? Or will this article never be anything more than an unnecessary table? What information is does this add that is not already adequately covered by the main article's description and picture of the wheel?Collectonian (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've responded above to the sourcing issue; a previous editor raised similar concerns, and I answered them to his satisfaction on the article's talk page. It's a simple description based on verifiable observation of the show. There's no WP:OR involved. I've also stated above my reasons why the separate article was spun off from the main show page. Several of the images on the show page have been challenged under fair use, and if the picture of the wheel is removed, this is the only available way to convey its appearance. The main article describes the wheel, but this table elaborates on that in a way that I think adds relevant content. JTRH (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You must mean you want us to use a "copyrighted picture (image) of the wheel which was taken from the show itself. I doubt that would meet GFDL requirements. No. I think a table will do great and will do good if anyone wants or needs to republish. --CyclePat (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I agree with Collectonian-- the picture of the wheel is worth about 1,000 words more than this "24 lines of fortune" representation. What's "verifiable observation"?  Kind of like original research, except we can tune in at 7:00 tonight to verify it?  Mandsford (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Verifiable observation = the source of the information is watching the show, which anyone can do to verify it, and this is simple description. Please see the article's talk page for my argument as to why that doesn't constitute OR. And again, the picture of the wheel has been challenged as non-fair-use. JTRH (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As a subarticle, its notability is not a valid rationale for deletion. The sourcing obviously exists in the show.  Sure, the article could use citation but that's reason for cleanup not deletion. -- Masterzora (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I commented above, but didn't actually vote. JTRH (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete Keep but merge and move. This is really the type of content that belongs on a fanpage for the show, not in a place like Wikipedia. But, I made a few edits to try to clean up what was already here to make it presentable, but truthfully I just don't think this should even be here in the first place.  DJ Bullfish  18:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this page may be worth inclusion, but not as a seperate article. Merge this, stuff like the set, theme music, and other stuff into one big subpage. Preferably without a glut of unfree images, particularly ones taken from other sites.  DJ Bullfish  18:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge Not OR, but not enough to consitute a separate article. Either shrink the table, tone down the colors, and put it in the main Wheel Of Fortune article, or get a screenshot of the wheel, write up a fair-use rationale, and put that in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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) 03:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've created a variation of this table which conveys the same information in about 15% of the space. It's on my user page; please look it over if you'd like. It can easily fit onto the main article page (which has been significantly edited down since yesterday). I'm amenable to adding the new table to the main page and deleting the sub-page. I guess that constitutes a merge. I'll let the AfD process run its allotted time, but if there are no objections to this suggestion, that's how I'd like to proceed. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The vertical design of the above would make the information substantially more difficult to read, in my opinion. It saves space, but pays a huge price in readability in return.
 * Point taken. The original diagram on the sub-page was vertically oriented, and then changed for readability. However, if the sub-page is closing down and this diagram is going on the main page, then space is at a premium. I enlarged the font so that the numbers are more visible without changing the overall size of the diagram. Also, in its vertical orientation, it more closely approximates a linear rendering of the wheel's actual appearance. JTRH (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP and close this AFD: Seem like a No brainer... let me see Wheel of Fortune, TV show... hummm... Turn the TV... Okay... find the TV guide first here... So let's take the http://ca.tv.yahoo.com/wheel-of-fortune/show/25th-anniversary-sweepstakes/episode/162196 25th Anniversary Sweepstakes, Season 34, Episode 121] which appears to air tomorow. Tape it and whach the wheel spin... then indicate that the information was taken from the episode. (ex.: Episode 121, Wheel of Fortune, Publish by A Chanel, Rogers Cables, Chanel 6, Original air time, 8h00 p.m. February 25 2008, accessed February 25 2008.)... Seems like a reasonable source to me... As they say "right from the horses mouth" :P And tell the person that can't find sources for this article to read WP:DICK. --CyclePat (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, so it doesn't clutter the main article. That is why we have . Also, this looks like a close per WP:SNOW. MrPrada (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When is the AfD supposed to close? JTRH (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not the topic of reliable independent sources. Yes, we can see it in the show. Should we have an article on the cloting of the presenters and the candidates? We can see those too. This is in itself not a notable topic, as evidenced by the lack of secondary sources, and should not have a separate article. Fram (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment: What next... you're going to tell me that Canada's Anual Financial Report (or 2008 budget as published on their website here)is not a "reliable independent source." Yup! Whatever... who better to comment on Canada's financial situation? After all, it's from Canada's own government and their own press release... ... Wake up dude! Where do you think this information comes from. Seriously... your comment is contradictory is like saying we can't include primary information on wikipedia because it hasn't been reported on by secondary sources. What would you make of a CTV article title B.C. introduces carbon tax in 'green' budget? Or how about a press release from Microsoft saying they "Microsoft Proposes Acquisition of Yahoo! for $31 per Share". Perhaps you could enlighten everyone here. Perhaps we could use a refresher on wiki's policies regarding deletions.... because I no longer have a clue what type of policy we're talking about here that would warant deletion because of these circumstances. --CyclePat (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not said that we can't include primary sources, but indeed, we should not have articles that are solely based on primary sources. From our core policy: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The essential part for this discussion is the "third-party published" part. Further on, it says that self-published sources may be used, as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources. " So the "type of policy that would warrant deletion" is the good old verifiability policy. Fram (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's not necessary to graphically represent the wheel in this way, all that is needed is to describe the various spaces in an adequate manner. I also believe that the article/graphic will become unmaintained and obsolete as the show's producers make changes in the future.  PKT (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * STRONG D L  T  . This is a sourcing nightmare. It's cobbled together by a slo-mo replay of the latest episode. What order the spaces are in is not encyclopedic, rather a brief overview of the relevant spaces is, which the parent article accomplishes. Fan motivation for keeping makes the point all the more clear that it is relevant for a fansite instead.&mdash;Twigboy (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a s_ub article, broken out per WP:SIZE just as it should be. The main topic is clearly notable and said article has a length that is reasonable.  The only real argument in my opinion is WP:V and a primary source can be just fine for that.  68.40.58.255 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2008 (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.