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 List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Courcelles 19:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Hangers[edit]

Cliff Hangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was nominated twice and survived deletion twice. This is nominated the third time, so will this article be "kept"? To me, if so, then the article should find resources. Only one trivial fact is cited (the model's husband missing in action), and that is not helpful enough to keep this article alive. If not, then I propose a merge with List of The Price is Right pricing games. Don't get me started on the rules vs. "original research" and the unaffiliated fansites; also, don't point out how Drew Carey assumes the "popularity" of this game as he has no proof whatsoever. Gh87 (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge It would make a nice section in an article. Little / insufficient indication of wp:notability for a stand-alone article. Scope of topic is too narrow for such. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. In the absence of reliable sources discussing this game in depth, we must presume it has no independent notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Marking for deletion a third tme after it has already survived two attempts is excessive and it is one of the most popular games on TPIR. I vote keep. TySoltaur (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I bolded your votes for more emphasis. You accused me for Wikipedia:canvassing in my talk page, and you haven't given me a slight reason or proof for that. Also, I have stroke through your original post and replied in my own talk page. You think that I have "lured" voters with this AfD's original post. Instead of stooping low and do harm, how about Wikipedia:Deletion review after this AfD is over? --Gh87 (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Otherwise, how about ((AfD-merge to))? --Gh87 (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You spammed to a large number of people (just look at Gh87's contributions, the number of people that were spammed with the same message in a short amount of time). That is canvassing which Wiki frowns upon. And you haven't really given any 'NEW' evidence that despite two previous attempts from other people why this article should be deleted. TySoltaur (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Accusing me of spamming? Just look at your old revision of your talk page as of 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC). You were blocked for your behavior. C'mon! Show everyone a link of my contributions. Just give everyone a link to my contributions, okay? --Gh87 (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • that is IRRELEVANT to the AfD, dude. Are you that desperate that you are willing to post stuff that has no bearing on his article? TySoltaur (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • What about this revision? You have been blocked on May 2011. [1] --Gh87 (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC) How is this irrelevant to this AfD? Also, I'm questioning your credibility. Am I wrong? --Gh87 (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • you are destroyin your own credibility by bringing stuff into here that has no bearing on the AfD discussion nor the article itself. And I am done hereTySoltaur (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you are done here, can I strike through your messages and mine with an exception of our own votes? Or we can let the administrators deal with them. You voted "keep", and I voted "merge"; we can leave them unstroke. Are we resolved? Also, I will strike through all the messages that either you gave me or I typed in my own talk page, so we both will pass through this, won't we? --Gh87 (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You are free to strike your own posts, but not mine. TySoltaur (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, what kind of "same message", as you mentioned in my talk page are you referring? The articles that haven't improved and that have no notability and citation established for years? If that's not what you are referring, then what? --Gh87 (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • As to the same essage, it's on the same Userpage of everyone you contacted. (Look at Gh's contribution page and look at the userpage everyone he posted on. EXACT SAME MESSAGE. That is spamming. TySoltaur (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • You mean ((afd-notice))? --Gh87 (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Lol, catfight Sloggerbum (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Straight redirect to List of The Price Is Right pricing games. No independent reliable sources at all in the article, even after several years. Any pertinent information is already in the larger article, nothing significant to merge into it. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per North8000 and Psychonaut. Willking1979 (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of The Price is Right pricing games—No sourced information to merge into target article, and target already contains a sufficient overview. While the game may be part of pop culture or a favorite of fans, no sources are included to address WP:N guidelines for a stand-alone article. Article has been tagged with needing more refs for 4+ years. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as there is in fact one reliable source cited (which is why I changed the template from unreferenced to refimprove way back in 2008--and that appears to be the only reason I was alerted to this AfD) and much (not not necessarily all) of the information in this article should be retained. - Dravecky (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, there is a reliable source, but it is a primary source, not an independent one. The content's verifiable, it's just that the one source listed doesn't establish enough to be notable. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above since there is a relevant sourced fact that should carry over. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP! KEEP! KEEP! KEEP! KEEP! KEEP! My god! No one here likes game show articles, it seems to me.--I'm a Graduate! (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Chris[reply]
  • Unfortunately, there are no non-fan-based sources that can keep this article alive. Conclude all you want, but without non-fansite sources of older rules, where can we find them? --Gh87 (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • it would apear there is not a consensus for deletion. Some are saying merge, yet others are saying keep. Few if any have actualy voted for deletion besides you. TySoltaur (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you doing here? Almost everyone in this nomination (excluding previous nominations) says "merge". Also, you said that you are done here; clearly, I don't see your plans to strike out your non-consensus replies. Are you going to sockpuppet here? --Gh87 (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • just who do you think you are, trying to tell others where they may or may not post? If I choose to post an observation here, I can and will if I choose to, regardless of your opinion. And I will not strike my comments, I prefer to leave them for all to see. (and btw, merge is not the same as delete, which is the purpose you were trying for with this AfD, right? So I would say based on evidence of the votes that the article will survive this 3rd deletion attempt in some form TySoltaur (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I removed the spacing for you. Anyway, if you believe that this article will be kept by the "consensus", fine! Merge doesn't mean "keep" either; remember that! --Gh87 (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hey, you two, this isn't the time to be arguing.--I'm a Graduate! (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Chris[reply]

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.