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 delete. The previous close was a script error. I had intended to delete. Must have flicked the wrong speedy outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snatch Game[edit]

Snatch Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The segment is not sufficiently notable outside of the main show to need its own article. WP:FANCRUFT. --woodensuperman 13:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is most definitely sufficiently notable outside of the main show and doesn't hurt to have its own article. Dallasansel (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? Can you show significant coverage by reliable sources? If not, this falls foul of WP:HARMLESS. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose deleting this article. The phenomenon of a "recurring segment" is admittedly a peculiar phenomenon in broadcast media, so the standard inclusion criteria are likely ill suited for addressing this type of content. For the sake of comparison, consider various recurring segments from Saturday Night Live (The Barry Gibb Talk Show, Coffee Talk, Sprockets, and many others) or The Itchy & Scratchy Show from The Simpsons. While references could be improved, I believe deletion is unwarranted in this case. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 04:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recurrent segments are incredibly common in TV shows of many sorts. Only a very few are notable enough for individual articles, such as the ones you mention. None of those are subgames on a game show so they don't really help us here. For game shows it is more appropriate to describe the format, including the main subgames, in the main article and not to attempt to detail every winner or loser at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge selectively into the main article(s) and/or Redirect. While I do think a recurring segment could possibly be notable on its own, the bar for coverage would be relatively high, and I would want to see a good amount of analysis of that particular segment beyond e.g. talk about the show in general, episode recaps, and other kinds of coverage that you could expect of recurring segments on any reality tv show with recurring segments. I'm thinking about Top Chef's Quickfire, Wheel of Fortune's Bonus Round, Final Jeopardy, etc. -- all of which would have coverage within coverage of the show itself but not a great deal of special attention paid to them beyond routine coverage of the shows. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Very limited partial merge and delete the rest. The idea that individual subgames on a contest or talent show should have their own articles is flat out bonkers in pretty much all cases. If there are any exceptions then this sure ain't one of them. I have no objection to the name and some very basic explanation of the game format being merged to the main article but all the detailed coverage here is pure fancruft and needs to go. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a indiscriminate pile of minor stats about individual winners and losers of individual episodes of game shows and minor sporting events. There are places on the internet for this sort of thing but Wikipedia is not one of them. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: information in article is already included in the season pages in some way. There's no need for a segment on a reality show to have its on article. Brocicle (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[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.