Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check Game (2nd nomination)

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. Cirt (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check Game

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

Unsourced original research on a pricing game. Precedent for deletion started with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Any Number et al. No sources forthcoming, only ref is a YouTube vid. Last AFD closed as no consensus, with no prejudice against renomination. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no fan of pricing games, but there seems to be at least one book on "The prize is right" and probably more. This is certainly not highly scientific, but neither is the topic. This would mean that it is possible to source the article to some extent, it has just not been done within the last 5 years. However, this seems to make it a weak keep. PanchoS (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of The Price Is Right pricing games#Check Game as it is not notable enough to have an article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons listed by Armbrust Sottolacqua (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2010 (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.