Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheel of Fortune (board game)

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. Shimeru (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel of Fortune (board game)

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

Article fails notability guidelines and topic does not warrant individual article. Wheel_of_Fortune (U.S. game show)#Merchandise already contains adequate information describing the home game available. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related pages because article is related to this debate and deletion reasons are similar as this nomination:~~

Delete This belongs on a game show or home game enthusiast site, not here. Unsourced fancruft for a subject with an interest only notable to a select few. Nate • (chatter) 23:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-comment Vote was made in regards to the board games, not the video games added later to the nom and would vote keep on that due to good sourcing and notability. Nate • (chatter) 12:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect — to Wheel of Fortune, possible mentioning game in article. mono 23:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim down on both articles. Especially with the video games, there is definitely notability there. –MuZemike 17:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Sottolacqua's reasoning. This article seriously has no reliable sources available. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the video game article, neutral on the board games till I've looked for sources. In fact, leaving the video games in is going to muddy this discussion, it would be advisable to strike them and concentrate on the board game. A great deal of the sources for the older video games are locked away in magazines, but there are some online like [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Those are all from good reliable sites (IGN, GameSpot, Gamezebo, allgame), that's where I stopped copying and pasting rather than ran out of sources. Their collective notability really shouldn't be up for debate. Someone another 02:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, you shall all be spanked with further videogame sourceage: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Serves you bloody right. Someone another 03:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are merely reviews of the video games. They do not provide any reasonable proof that this topic is notable enough to warrant an entire separate article outside of the television show. Sources that prove the video games merely exist do not provide any additional case toward proving the topic notable. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video game articles are usually crafted primarily from reviews, which are no less usable as sources than any other kind of article. Notability is demonstrated when there are multiple, non-trivial and reliable secondary sources. That's what's there, what else are you expecting? Someone another 03:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros. and Monopoly (game) are notable enough to warrant articles. The various board and video game versions of Wheel of Fortune have not even remotely reached a level of notability to warrant articles here. The links you've presented are merely reviews of gameplay – they do not prove notability as some of the sources listed in Super Mario Bros. and Monopoly (game) do. The information in these articles belongs on BoardGameGeek or a video game wiki, not here. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability you're referring to is a standard of your own making, though you haven't explained what that standard actually is, pointing at one of the most famous video games of all time doesn't elaborate and calling legitimate sources "merely reviews" isn't making your point. The notability guideline has been met in regards to a single article on the subject of WoF video games due to the number of non-trivial secondary sources from reliable websites which are above. You are welcome to leave it bundled in this AFD, but there's as much chance of it being deleted as Lucifer skating to work next week and it's taking attention away from the article which may not meet WP:N. Someone another 04:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The reviewed video games clearly pass the notability guidelines, although obviously the article needs some verification work. Perhaps we can focus on the boardgames? WP:PRODUCT explains what to do. Since many of the articles for the companies already have their product lists split off, I see no reason not to retain this article as a "List of" - although yes, verification needs some attention. Marasmusine (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note – I've removed Wheel of Fortune (video game) from the nomination to focus only on Wheel of Fortune (board game).

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.