"

 All this argument crap. 

In my opinion, 
a) Notability is established in this article in the fact that One Bid is a qualifying game played 6 times a show, every show, 5 days a week, on a highly rated network game show, and has been an element of every version of the show since the original. It would be ideal to have some other citations to show it's been recognized outside of the show itself, but I believe sufficient notability has been met, and the tag needn't be there.

b) Original research. If you are read the tag, it says ""See talk page for details."" If you are not going to either tag with  or start a talk page section explaining what you believe is original research (or be more specific by tagging only the relevant sections), then I don't believe the tag should stand

c) I think this article does need more citations. I think almost every article on wikipedia needs more citations than are currently there. However, since there isn't even a single  tag on the article, I don't see what specific information is felt to be requiring citation. As I understand it, Wikipedia practice allows primary sources (in this case, the show itself) to act as a source for anything relevant to rules and how the game is played and what happens. So if there are major uncorroborated facts in the article, you ought to tag them specifically to justify a refimprove banner tag

d) The merge discussion seems to have been abandonned. I believe it should be appropriately revived and an actual pro/con vote be taken, or else abandon the merge tag. I see no evidence of support from the discussion linked to in the tag.

This is my opinion as to how the tags should be dealt with. It is not sufficient to just say ""original research exists in this article so I'm going to slap a tag at the top."" (for example). These tags should be supported by specific explainations or pointers to actual problematic content unless the entire article really needs citing or is original research, which I don't find to be the case here.   "