Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plinko (3rd 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 keep. Merger should be discussed on the talk page. Clearly no consensus to use the deletion tool, however, so that disucssion can, and should, continue outside AFD. Courcelles 23:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plinko (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 has been nominated twice for deletion before this time; it survived twice in spite of lack of citations. Well, everybody mentions the game's title; unfortunately, the game's notability is insufficient enough to keep this article. The history's rules are still unreferenced, and the past major mistakes (e.g. "rigged" incident) are good enough to be in List of The Price Is Right pricing games. External link is too bare; it contains a Drew Carey video and only the current rules. I would say merge, just as "Cliff Hangers" did recently. --Gh87 (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the list, per nom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Unlike Cliff Hangers, there is at least one independent, reliable source on this one, meaning it at least has a shred of notability. If a second one can be found before this discussion closes, then it's a definite keep. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "rigged" incident is cited; the history of the rules isn't. Also, one link is dead. Would the "rigged" incident make Plinko notable? --Gh87 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, I am seeking at least one more independent reliable source for this one as per WP guidelines. I will not comment on the content of the single source unless/until a second source is made. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just added an article from what I think is the AP from 1999 that mentioned Plinko as one of Bob Barker's favorite games. I'd still like to see some more before we decide one way or the other; Google News is turning up a lot of trivial references with no context. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's... a good start. Even so, that would be a good content to merge. --Gh87 (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article has been nominated twice for deletion before this time, and was kept, already a consensus. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I placed another independent reliable source from ABC News, Technology in the article. Click here for the link. I agree with user J. Myrle Fuller, "If a second one can be found before this discussion closes, then it's a definite keep." Another such link was just added to the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep procedural keep as nom is asking for a merge which generally belongs on the talk page, not AfD. Further, while sourcing is borderline it seems to rise to the letter of WP:N and I see no reason to think consensus on that issue has changed. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus the additional sources added since the start of the AfD make this a pretty clear keep. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Neutrality^talk 07:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no further comment. --I'm a Graduate! (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Chris[reply]
• SPEEDY CLOSE/KEEP, the nominator should not use a deletion nomination as a device when he desires a merge. Close this now and let him propose a merger the right way. Mathewignash (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding notability—The references that have been added since the article was nominated for deletion do not address criteria in WP:GNG. The links are barely a trivial mention of the game itself. The first ([1]) contains two lines about general game play that is part of an overall description for an "online experience." The second, (Mostly) True Stories by John Nemo [2], provides a description of the game play and uses the random aspects and possible outcomes within the game as an analogy to random events in one's life related to family and relationships. The subject of the book or point of the work is not about Plinko—it's about the unpredictability of life events. Using this source to establish notability would be similar to using a trivial mention of a television show if it appears briefly in a movie (e.g., Bill Murray memorizing Jeopardy! clues in Groundhog Day would not be an applicable source to meet WP:GNG for Jeopardy!). The point of WP:GNG is not to create a collection of random anecdotal mentions of a topic. The point is to show that the topic itself has been found in reliable sources with significant coverage. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have to disagree with this reasoning. The fact that Plinko is being used in the common culture for an comparison exactly proves it is notable, it's become part of the culture, something people reference in day to day use. Mathewignash (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I found some coverage on ProQuest and Google Scholar: for example,
  • Beth L. Jokinen. "'Price is Right' comes to classroom" McClatchy - Tribune Business News. May 28, 2009. (about Lima West Middle School class that created versions of pricing games, including Plinko, for probability lesson)
  • Susan Thurston. "'Price is Right' is calling; Sixty women vie for a shot at being a model on the venerable television game show on Wednesday in Tampa." St. Petersburg Times. August 14, 2008. p. B.3. (about auditions for "Carey's cuties," including story of woman who had a Plinko chip signed by Bob Barker for her grandfather in 2004)
  • Marc Saltzman. "Be a virtual contestant on 'The Price is Right'" Gannett News Service. April 25, 2008. (review of PC game, with the sentence "In Plinko, for example, you must guess if the left or right number in a two-digit price for a product is correct, then you get to drop a coin down a Plinko board and hope it falls into the $10,000 slot instead of the $0 slot.")
  • "Game shows: Silliness that sells" The Chilliwack Progress (Chilliwack, British Columbia, Canada). January 11, 2008. p. A.10. (502-word article about The Price is Right, with the line "Plinko, in which contestants drop saucer-sized discs down a peg board into money slots -- the most being $10,000 -- is [the anonymous author's] dad's favourite. He's 81 years old.")
  • There is also a teacher's guide about Plinko, from 1995, at [3].
  • Also, there is a scholarly article by Alexander et al. titled "Plinko: polling with a physical implementation of a noisy channel" in an article about a method of making survey data anonymous. [4].
  • Finally, there is a classroom activity for Plinko, as described in the Journal of Statistics Education at [5]. (Biesterfeld, "The Price (or Probability) Is Right", 2001).

These sources (especially the scholarly ones) clearly demonstrate enough notability for Plinko to merit its own article. RJaguar3 | u | t 07:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per RJaguar3; that's some good research there, and satisfies me that there is some notability here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:26, 8 September 2011 (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.