Deletion of List of The Price Is Right pricing games (3rd nomination)

Comment: The games are the essence of TPoR, but remove any games that can't be verified by es. For the purposes of verification, the primary source is acceptable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Sotta claims "the vast majority of the information incldued in this article is unsourced and contains unverifiable original research concerning the specific rules of pricing games"; however, if the rules are explicitly mentioned by the host or are obvious to anyone, there is no original research, and it meets verifiability since since (1) the material is unlikely to be challenged, making a source unnecessary and (2) the episode(s) fall(s) under .  This is not to say that anything at all that could be said about the pricing games is acceptable; speculation and unsourced comparisons would still be original research that we would have to remove, but this does not justify deleting the whole article.  E also says "rules to pricing games that no longer regularly appear on the program are not covered by independent verifiable acceptible sources"; again, '''independent''' verifiable sources are not necessary because the past episodes on which those games were played can be used as sources on the rules of play of the game per .  (In reference to JTRH, note that YouTube links to old shows would likely be verboten per ; however, we can still cite the episodes by airdate, contestants, production number, or other information that serves to uniquely identify a single episode.)  I do agree that most of the pricing games would likely fail  for having their own articles, but within a larger article on a sub-topic of a notable program, the main criterion to examine is verifiability, which is passed with flying colors.  In disposing of Sotta's last argument, I would like to point out that it is a big stretch to suggest that there would be copyright problems in this article.  First, game mechanics are not copyrightable subject matter.  For example, the idea of picking which of two prices is the correct price of a prize is simply not protectable.  While CBS may have a copyrighted description of Double Prices on their website, only the expression and word choice of the description are protectable.  Likewise, we can make a description of how Plinko is played that does not infringe on the copyright of CBS's description.  However, there are also copyright issues of the list of games and their selection, coordination, and arrangement.  I do have an issue with the classification of games as "active" or "retired", which appears to (1) come from Wikipedians' judgments (making it original research) or (2) come from some CBS declaration (in which case, there may an infringement on CBS's copyrighted judged selection of which games to consider active.  I don't think there would be a problem, though, if there is a clear factual basis for declaring a game retired (such as, the game hasn't been played on episodes first aired since September 1, 2009).  Apart from the active-retired issue, the games are arranged in alphabetical order, which again is not sufficiently creative to merit a copyright on the listing, and further, all the games are listed, meaning that there is no copyrightable selection within the list.  Overall, the article should be kept, but the issues above need to be worked out (however, this does not require deletion).  '''RJaguar3 &#124
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SELFPUB||WP:SELFPUB||WP:LINKVIO||WP:N)

Comment: into article per ,  and . Darth
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:VERIFY||WP:N)