Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wordhunt

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. If editors are interested in a future Merge, that can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wordhunt

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I wrote on the talk page while you were writing this, there is a lot of coverage of the Wordhunt to be found in Proquest. I added several reliable sources (Guardian, Scotsman, Chronicle of Higher Education), and the Boston Globe was already cited in the article, but there are also articles in Proquest in The Times (several), The Observer, Belfast Telegraph, Derby Evening Telegraph, Daily Post and even The Hindustan Times and Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Television, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the reason is solely "not notable" then I have to disagree. There's definitely some room for improvement on the article, but if there's enough sources about it, I see no reason to not keep it. It seems like WP:DANNO is happening here, I'd rather be convinced this isn't notable instead of just being told it isn't. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 21:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Selective) Merge with Balderdash and Piffle. We've definitely got some good coverage of this, but given that the two topics are so closely intertwined, I don't see why they need separate articles. The article as-is could use some trimming...we don't need the whole list of words for sure, but both can certainly fit comfortably together. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given the argument to Merge. I'll just say that this is a very poor deletion rationale which isn't an argument at all or and doesn't demonstrate that a BEFORE has been done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while leaving open the possibility of a merge with Balderdash and Piffle as part of normal editing. It seems like both are independently notable so I don't think a merge is strictly necessary, but they're so closely related that I can see how a single article might be more reader-friendly. That being said, I don't feel particularly strongly about it and I do see the benefit of separating out the television show/books from the wider OED appeal. So keep for the purposes of AfD, and neutral on the possibility of merging in future. MCE89 (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Wordhunt has been covered in many reliable and notable sources. While merging it with Balderdash and Piffle could be considered since the topics are closely related, this is more of an editing decision and doesn't mean the article should be deleted. The current article can be improved and expanded. It should be kept, and any discussion about merging can happen later. - The9Man ^Talk 15:03, 10 January 2025 (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.