Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Feud (home game)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. Courcelles 09:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Family Feud (home game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Family Feud#Home versions covers this topic in more than enough detail. This article is simply the rule book from the home game with a few details about later versions, information which is already included in the parent article. Tagged as unreferenced and orphan since December 2009, and this article lacks notability to be a stand-alone topic. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Reach Out to the Truth 17:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral on the home game, but Keep on the video games per long standing consensus from WP:VG. We don't delete console video game articles. Versions of the game have been released on at least 10 different consoles over the year, all covered in this single article. If your rationale to delete "follows the same reasoning as above," your claims of being unreferenced and orphaned are false. Vodello (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also, there is nothing in the video game project article guidelines that speaks of never deleting console games, so this so-called long-standing consensus has not been codified in any meaningful way. The article guidline page does require an article subject to be notable based on the criteria of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. I see no evidence of that here. Indrian (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the co-nomination is that the reason for deleting either article would be quite different. These are only related by brand; is the video game version of similar notability to the home game version? Doubtful. And the fact that the releases span 20 years makes it very iffy to up and opt for deletion. Keep. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I confess that I did not even notice that the original nom had added a second article and agree that lumping them together is a bad idea. Consider my vote a delete for the home game only. The video game article is probably worth deleting too, but it should have been nominated separately. Indrian (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the co-nomination is that the reason for deleting either article would be quite different. These are only related by brand; is the video game version of similar notability to the home game version? Doubtful. And the fact that the releases span 20 years makes it very iffy to up and opt for deletion. Keep. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Home games have no standalone notability; the home game is sufficiently covered in the parent article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:44, 19 November 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.