Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3 in a Row

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) 03:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 in a Row

(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. Last bundled in AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check Game which closed as no consensus with no prejudice against renomination. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:38, 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) 05:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The question is not whether it is sourced, but whether it can be sourced sufficient to show notability per WP:N. The consensus is some pricing games are individually notable, others are not. I'm unable to find evidence of notability for this game with good faith Google searches, and the article doesn't provide any, so delete as failing WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:22, 11 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.