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. The arguments seem to be relatively split between keep and merge, so there certainly isn't a delete consensus. To those who still want some kind of merge solution, my recommendation is to try to start a discussion about a possible article structure different than the current one, get input, and see what you can actually build. Though many argued against merging, many argue that the games are notable enough for their own articles, but while that's a good argument against deleting or redirecting, it doesn't necessarily mean that the current structure is the best one. However, there is also some legitimate skepticism of a merge solution, so consensus may not develop in that direction. Mango juice^talk 17:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Price is Right pricing games[edit]

(View log) Included in this nomination:

I realize that this nomination will be upsetting to fans of The Price is Right, but none of these games appears to satisfy Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable sources. There is no evidence that any of these games have been the subject of multiple, independent published works. Indeed, only three of the articles list any references at all, and in those cases the references are to either the official TPIR website or to a fan website.

Certainly the information contained in these articles is interesting to those familiar with the show (myself included); however, they go into far more detail than what is expected of or appropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia. This level of detail for television programs is why there exist dedicated wikis such as Memory Alpha, Lostpedia, and the Muppet Wiki. —Psychonaut 02:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. If necessary, a one-line summary of each game can be added to List of The Price Is Right pricing games. —Psychonaut 02:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it may be more detail than required for a g-p encyclopedia, I seem to recall that Wikipedia may include content which is appropriate to special encyclopedias. I think that principle might be found here. Do you have an idea as to which other Wiki it might be transwikied to, and if that wiki's license is compatible with GFDL? I'd suggest that Plinko might be notable on its own, but I'm neutral on the whole idea. (Mainly because, though, even though I think you make a compelling case, there's no way that more-articles-than-I-can-count-easily mass nominations deserve the effort.) LaughingVulcan 03:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Plinko's the most popular of the lot, but even its article cites no independent sources. On the other hand, many of the other games, such as Bullseye (retired pricing game), were played only a handful of times. As for transwikiing, no, I'm not aware of any other GFDL-compatible wiki which would take these articles. Which isn't to say there isn't one out there. —Psychonaut 03:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is just too much to look through. Some of these probably should go, but others probably should stay. I for one am not going to read each one and decide this. Also, for sources look at List of Pricing Games from CBS. While I know you can't write the article and then find sources, its not like this stuff is made up or cannot be supported. Also, with Bob Barkers recent retirement and no new host named as of yet, who's to say these articles serve no purpose? Lets give it time, let people modify these articles and find new sources, and see the future of the show before we take any action. --CTwikipedier 03:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to The TV Wiki. I believe that these articles may be of interest to some people but it may be hard to find independent, reliable sources to verify their content and notability. --Metropolitan90 03:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Way too many articles here for me to be confident, though narrowly focused enough that it's only a minor concern, but my suggestion is that all of them be merged to a single page such as the already existing List of The Price Is Right pricing games. The Price is Right is a reasonable subject for an article. The pricing games are a reasonable section to include in that article. But that would be a fair bit of content, so a spin-off daughter article would be appropriate. Not this number though. Article on the games overall=good idea. Article on individual games=bad idea, like hopping to get the nickel when you're the first player at the big wheel with 95 cents on your first spin. Of course, reasonable sources for verification should be provided, but since notability isn't a problem, third-party isn't an issue. FrozenPurpleCube 04:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the ideal move is to merge in the list article mentioned above, and annotate the list. It's a really big job though. I'd work on it some if there's consensus. CitiCat 05:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- There are 101 of these articles. If they were simply combined into a single article, we'd end up with one massive article that's just as non-notable as the originals. If the articles are to be merged, then they will need to be significantly trimmed. —Psychonaut 10:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - sounds like a good plan to me. Charlie-talk to me-about what I've done 08:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - a single article or, if a single article would be too long, a couple of smaller articles (broken up alphabetically and/or by active/retired status) would be acceptable. Otto4711 12:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one article with a short description of the games. If not possible, Otto4711's suggestion is good. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 14:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Looks like a perfect set of articles for consolidation. Tightly connected to a single theme, probably not notable by themselves, likely to be retrieved only by specific searches (i.e., for Price Is Right related material). ◄Zahakiel ► 14:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I appreciate the comments posted above, honestly; But if these games are consolodated into one article, even just the rules of the games will be significantly longer than the standard "acceptable" wiki length for an article. I think a good number of the games are fairly notable Americana after 35 years of TPIR, and while I might agree that perhaps, Double Bullseye is not the most memorable and long-played game, if you're gonna have the other pages, completionism leads me to say that skipping an article for one game just because it's the least known of them all just leads to a hole in the encyclopedia. Perhaps a compromise is to merge "retired pricing games" into one article, while keeping the articles for active ones? I'm not sure. But I think the games are fairly notable in their own right. If every character on Lost who have appeared in 2 or 3 episodes deserves an article, I don't see why the pricing games which have appeared for years are less notable. TheHYPO 17:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to respond to part of this, no subject "deserves" an article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not entitlements. As for articles on the characters of Lost, they fall under the purview of WP:FICT. If you find an article that doesn't conform to WP:FICT or other Wikipedia guidelines or policies, please feel free to take corrective action. However, the the existence of other articles doesn't justify the existence of these. Otto4711 17:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles are kept, we should probably do something like making a category to tie them together link-wise. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I completely agree with HYPO above. These aren't just super-short stubs. Merging would only make one very long article. Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 17:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I don't think think delete/merge is the way to cure the issue. These articles need sourcing which is available. They also need to be expanded to include their international counterparts, which will add substance to the article. I am not familiar with the independent, published works criteria; applied elsewhere in TV land will nuke most of the episodic articles of other television shows. This does not excuse the articles in their current state, as they tend to be magnets for junk, but they need an overhaul.—Twigboy 17:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, Same thing that Hypo said. Besides these articles are important. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 17:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for those who are saying that building list articles would be too long, I have started putting together a list for the retired games here. The list as of this moment encompasses about a quarter of the retired games. With redundant information removed and bearing in mind that with the merger of these articles the enormous navtemplate for them would be reduced to a single line item, I really don't think that a list of at least the retired games would be so overwhelmingly massive as to make a merger untenable. Otto4711 18:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my retired list now includes all retired games. With all information from all the articles, and not edited to remove duplicate information, the article would be 64K long. That is not the excessive monster of an article I think people are envisioning, and with proper editing the thing can be brought well down in size. Otto4711 22:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With very basic editing it's now down to 60K, which includes some two dozen images. I'm hoping that those who're saying that merging the articles would make them too long are taking notice. Otto4711 22:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles contain useful information that is pertinent to a well known and notable television show. Combining all the games into one article would create a result that is far too long. -Quintin3265 18:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The show itself is a noted cultural landmark, and as a natural extension, so are the games played within it. Deleting them should not be an option. Merging is highly impractical; as others have said, even if the information for each pricing game was reduced to the absolute basics, combining it all would make for a ridiculously long and unwieldy article.Raymondluxuryacht 20:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these games within the game are apparently notable. Their current lack of sourcing is not a reason to delete: that would require that reliable sources could never be found. "Plinko" gets 285k ghits, including CBS (no surprise), Penn State University (taking on the mathematics of the game), and others; apparently there is a whole industry that makes or uses or supplies Plinko-type gizmos in the fund-raising world. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but separate articles can be split out summary-style for games like Plinko that have a lot written about them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if this was an instance, but ever so often, a page listing many topics will become too long and will require a split. Having pages for some games but listing the others doesn't seem right to me sometimes, no matter what you say. Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 23:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. This is a level of minutia and detail that is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. I would include examples of these pricing games in The Price is Right and could support short descriptions of each game (meaning 3 sentences or less) in List of The Price Is Right pricing games. In addition, I can support the keeping of Plinko or any other of these games with proven notability. However, the existance of one natable pricing game does not make all pricing games notable.. --EMS | Talk 23:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how does this meet the NOT i.c.o.i.? It's not indiscriminate at all. Let's stay with notability issues. CitiCat 04:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge most, keep others the few with notability can be kept, merge the others into one article, and if it gets to big, split it up. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're saying to split it later, then what's the point of merging it? Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 23:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean like if one page is too long, make it "Pricing games (A-M)" and "Pricing games (N-Z)" or similar. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I don't think merging all of them into one will be good--JForget 00:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the inactive ones as in the magnificent work of Otto, which is a model for how this material should be handled. Reconsider the others after we all have some time to admire his way of doing things. There might be some important enough to be kept separately. DGG 01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I forgot the inactive ones. If each of then can be reduced to 5-10 lines (providing that the list of inactive games is not too long, it can be merge into one for the defunct ones, but I don't change my opinion about the active ones.--JForget 18:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I think JForget is right - just merging them all eliminates reliable information. AppleMacReporter 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you merge all the inactive games into one list, I believe wikipolicy will dicatate that all the fair use screencaps will have to go (I'm pretty sure wikipolicy is that a "good article" ought to have no more than two fair use images). In a number of cases - particularly for the retired games - I think that that images is actually somewhat important in understanding how the game actually works. TheHYPO 18:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is only for "decorative" screen caps in "List of Episode" lists. In this case the caps would be providing a worthwhile visual aid and would be permissible.Sturmovik 21:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't looked myself, but I was told outright that for the Futurama article to be considerable as a "good article", it would have to have no more than 2 Fair Use images. While noone says this pricing game page would be a good article nominee, I assume that is the policy that we should be shooting to comply with. TheHYPO 05:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep allI personally have little interest in the subject but can see the problems clumping them all into one big article. Perhaps alpha-sorting them into larger articles (ex: a-e, f-k, etc.) might work. Benjiboi 19:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All per Raymondluxuryacht. --wpktsfs 19:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep with Some Merge For the past 35 years every kid home from school or adult taking a day off from work has become intimately familiar with TPiR Pricing Games. If you went around and asked people to name as many current world leaders as they could or as many TPiR games as they could, TPiR would win hands down. How some Wikisnobs could suggest that TPiR pricing games aren't notable enough is baffling to me. I will concede that the games with stub articles should be merged...either into the top level list or into a separate article along the lines of "Minor Pricing Games of The Price is Right", which would save having to add the descriptors for all the games in the top level list. Either way it is important that each has its own slot to attract expansion and new information. This includes not only how the game its played, its history, records, historical moments etc, but also probability analysis and optimal gameplay strategies. I find these articles highly relevant and useful and I respect the hard work that fellow Wikipedians have put into them. They should be kept and expended.Sturmovik 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "How some Wikisnobs could suggest that TPiR pricing games aren't notable enough" might not be so baffling to you if you were to refer to Wikipedia's definition of "notable". The reason world leaders are more notable than TPIR pricing games, even if the latter are better-known than the former, is because world leaders are the subject of multiple, independent published works. —Psychonaut 01:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Side comment. As a "keep" voter, I do not see the nom as a wikisnob. He (gender-neutral pronoun) brought up a point of notability and reliable sourcing. Correct on the reliable sourcing (which can be fixed), but I don't agree with the lack of notability. That's OK. Not everyone sees eye to eye, but the common thread is to improve Wikipedia. It is up to the community to decide, not solely by those intimately involved in the article. If the consensus goes against my vote, it is disappointing, especially given the depth of work involved. We pick up the pieces and edit accordingly. But it is not necessary to attack one's motives for suggesting an improvement to the encyclopedia.—Twigboy 04:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have no problem with people who seek to make Wikipedia a better/more useful experience, but to propose a mass deletion of a significant amount of community work based on highly tenuous reasoning is grossly irresponsible and is not something I believe to be community spirited. I am sure that most people are familiar with "that guy" who comes down to the town meeting and proceeds to ruin things for the rest of us. I can't speak to this person's intentions, but I feel that his actions are out of line. I mean nobody is forcing anybody to visit these pages. If a page doesn't agree with you, just don't click. I feel that the notability standard is there to prevent everyone and their grandmother, and every street and its pizza parlor from getting a Wikipedia article. Aside from that it is a low bar, like the "modicum of creativity" for copyrights and "non-obviousness" for patents. Wikipedia is based on constructive improvement and enabling the long tail. Destructive improvements should be used VERY sparingly. I have a strong dislike for those who seem to get fulfillment by removing the hard work of others as opposed to putting in effort of their own to make something acceptable to all parties.Sturmovik 16:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I support most of your POV, I disagree about strategy and probability. While it is theoretically interesting, most strategy that were in the articles when I got to them were what I would consider "original research". Secondarily, The fact that there are 25,893 possible path combinations on the Pathfinder board is not particularly useful or interesting information. I've tried to cut out such OR/superfluously unimportant statistical information. (EG: A full statistical analysis of the odds of getting each dollar value winning punchboard with 1 punch, 2 punches, etc... is possible, but way too overboard to me... while calculating the odds even of just winning the 10,900 prize, which I THINK might have been listed at one point, is kinda original research, and somewhat trivial. TheHYPO 05:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All I agree completely with the comments made by TheHypo and Raymondluxuryacht. -ChinookUT 09:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC) — ChinookUT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge Most of these television games have the same plot! Put them in to one big article. Chiketychina 19:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What does this even mean? There is no plot to a game.... TheHYPO 05:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely changing my answer. If you merge, you're going to lose information - how some have cheated over the past, how they've changed, pictures, etc. People will decide it's too long, cut it down... And I mean, it's been around for 35 years not even counting the '56 show - I think it might've earned its spot.-Babylon pride 14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the notion that editors might edit an article is not a reasonable argument. Editors now can decide to edit any one of these for length. Otto4711 22:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All I concur with many of the assessments above. Twigboy accurately cites that while the articles may individually require cleanup to meet Wikistandards, they are in no way lacking in notability as integral parts - indeed the "meat and potatoes" of a veritable television icon. Moreover, it seems to be one of the very cornerstone strengths of Wikipedia to afford the general public academic (or at the least, academically-leaning) information that other hardcopy-published encyclopedias might not. It would be a significant disappointment to see Wikipedia deprive itself of decent articles like many of these, particularly when there are articles on subjects far more obscure than these floating about the Wikisphere. Bhs itrt 15:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Uvaduck 23:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All or Merge into single article(and convert current articles to redirects)... Ranma9617 02:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep all or merge into several articles, either in alpahbetical order or by active/retired status. --Nyletak ♥ 05:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This has nothing to do with anything, but I feel bad for whoever will have to delete all those "delete" templates if it's decided to keep these things... I hope someone has AWB TheHYPO 05:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All The games are a major part of a game show! —Michael 15:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems best. Voice-of-All 18:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all but Plinko and Golden Road. The reason those two should stay as that they are the most notable and famous of the pricing games in TPiR history. Otherwise I agree with the above about merging them into one article.Mi tch 'azen 23:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least keep a decription of each game as a reference. The downside to deleting these pages is that some games have little known facts (such as in Check Game, that one wins cash in the amount of the check if one wins the game). A merge would work as well. Hallpriest9 (Talk | Archive) 03:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into two articles, one for the active and one for the retired, MAYBE with redirects if one game or another is more notable. I actually spent an evening as a fan going through these, and rather than bouncing from game to game, I would've preferred a chance to go through the list to find the one I was looking for, as I only had a description without a name for the game. It's relevant to a long-running game show, so game information I'd say is relevant, but an individual article for EACH pricing game (even the ones I thought were dinky little boring 'pick a price and hope it's right for a small prize' games--didn't even think they HAD names until that night I wandered through here!) is too much. Plinko would probably be worth redirecting to such a list. As for noting cheaters, that'd be either in the appropriate list's article as a separate section, as part of the TPIR article itself, or if enough is available, a spinoff article. And don't forget there's an article for game show cheaters out there somewhere, too. IL-Kuma 08:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And speedy close too. These games are very notable, and I question why they were even nominated in the first place. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐ 00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jared. One 00:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all. I thought of this months ago, but didn't think anything of it. The games are not notable enough to all be separate. Furthermore, I doubt there will ever be enough sources or information to expand them significantly to become quality articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. per Jared Myself325 08:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
KEEP --Jnelson09 14:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With the advent of Wikis about this subject matter, I would suggest that somebody start making a Wiki about Price itself, which would cover every game, historic moments among others. I'm not sure if that would help, but... -TonicBH 17:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with exceptions Ones which are notable enough (with sources) can have their own article, merge the rest and redirect. GDonato (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2007 (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.