Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant)

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 with the caveat that any can be immediately relisted separately. Bundling articles at AfD, unless they're clearly of equivalent non-notability or fail other policies, is rarely useful. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant)[edit]

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

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Article about game show contestant that fails guidelines in wp:notability. Delete for same reasons as listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant).Sottolacqua (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Sottolacqua (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar articles as David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) and for same WP:BLP1E guidelines:

~~Delete all~~ Delete all but Timanus per WP:BLP1E. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC) [EDITED TO ADD: Timanus was bundled after this comment was written; he may satisfy notability for being a sportswriter as well. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Changed to Keep Timanus, relist others for futher discussion; second choice would be to merge all but Timanus to List of civilian Jeopardy! contestants. RJaguar3 | u | t 13:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The article for Eddie Timanus only briefly mentions his sports-writing career in two sentences. The bulk of the article centers on his appearances on Jeopardy!, which does not meet notability guidelines. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Timanus doesn't turn out to be notable, we can move it to Eddie Timanus's Jeopardy! appearance or merge it to a suitable location, as there is wide coverage of Timanus's historic run on Jeopardy!. I'm still in the process though of finding sources for Timanus the journalist as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJaguar3 (talk • contribs)

(ec) Sometimes you need to look beyond the Wikipedia article for evidence of notability. In the case of Timanus, he was the subject of at least two news articles in the early 1990s, when he was working as a sports statistician:

(1) Steven Goff. "Timanus paints the picture by numbers". The Washington Post. Feb. 19, 1991. pg. D1.

(2) Bob McCoy. "Keeping score: a feel for the games". The Sporting News. February 26, 1990. Vol. 209, Issue 9. pg. 7.

These articles appeared long before he was on Jeopardy. I can access the former, but can only get an abstract for the latter. I'd be happy to add what I can to the Timanus article, but I'd prefer that you relist the articles separately before I start digging in. Zagalejo^^^ 00:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that

(3) John O'Connor. "Eagles' Timanus Mr. Nitty-Gritty of CAA Stat Men" Richmond Times-Dispatch. March 2, 1991. pg. D-1

I do have ProQuest, so I'll see if I can find a full-text copy of (1) or (2). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timanus appeared on only eight episodes of the program. There is a comment in the article that states "[His] story became a minor media sensation, with Jeopardy!'s Nielsen ratings rising 15% for Timanus's fourth and fifth games" which has been facgt-tagged for over a year. Based upon the content in his article, the topic does not meet notability guidelines. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article supports the claim about the ratings rise. There are many other news articles about his run on Jeopardy. What are you looking for, exactly? Zagalejo^^^ 00:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A statement about how this person is notable. Being a blind game show contestant is not something that is notable. He didn't set a trend of other blind contestants appearing on Jeopardy! or any other game shows, he's not the biggest winner ever, he's not xxx or yyy etc. He's simply not a notable person. There are thousands of sports writers and other contributors to news publications who do not have articles here. Timanus is not notable enough to warrant an article here. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he didn't "set a trend" because it's hard for the typical blind person to do well at Jeopardy. It's not just a matter of hearing the questions; he had to keep track of which selections on the board had already been answered. Also, since he couldn't read the clues, and didn't know how long they would be, he basically had to guess the right moment in which to ring in. [1] Just one win would have been pretty impressive, but the fact that he put together a winning streak is even more impressive.

But perhaps more important: what policy or guideline supports your argument, anyway? Third-party sources took note of his accomplishments. That's what we need to focus on. Zagalejo^^^ 01:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E supports my argument. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, the news articles from the early 1990s don't count? Zagalejo^^^ 01:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The news articles still have not changed the reasoning for deletion based on WP:BLP1E. He's not notable for anything other than being a blind Jeopardy! contestant, and his appearance has had no notable impact to the show, television, culture, etc. whatsoever. There are not articles for hearing impaired/deaf contestants who have appeared on Wheel of Fortune, handicapped/wheelchair-using contestants who have appeared on Price is Right, etc. These are not notable criteria. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But do you understand that he also received media coverage long before appearing on Jeopardy? Zagalejo^^^ 01:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument for notability that's been presented thus far, and the section about his early life in the article contains a ref to a broken link. The bulk of the article is about his appearance on Jeopardy! and contains no info that proves notability. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the articles earlier in this discussion. I'm not using them as the primary grounds for notability, but rather to show that Timanus is not just notable for "one event". He was known in sports media circles before appearing on Jeopardy. And as I said earlier, I'll be willing to add some content about Timanus' earlier years, but I don't want to get started until you relist these articles separately. This AFD is already flying in several directions. You need to help get things under control, so that the people interested in working on these articles can focus on one thing at a time. Zagalejo^^^ 02:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things are under control. Two editors provided comments and reasons to keep for two of the bundled AFDs and I responded restating my original arguments of how WP:BLP1E applies to both. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still haven't said anything about Spangenberg, Rutter, or Vered, though I'd argue to keep their articles, as well. Zagalejo^^^ 02:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relist separately. Some of these people (like Frank Spangenberg and Jerome Vered) were on the show multiple times over a span of 10+ years, and received media attention at several points throughout that span. This discussion will become a confusing mess unless it is unbundled. (For the record, I think the Roger Craig discussion should have gone on a bit longer.) Zagalejo^^^ 21:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles - the articles as described by Sottolacqua violate WP:BLP1E. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong relist 23:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.242.77 (talk)
Relist separately/Keep You claim the same reason to delete as in another AFD, that they "appeared on eight episodes or less" (fewer), but actually most of these people have been on more episodes than that. Madden has been on 22, the second most ever. Reywas92^Talk 00:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on 22 episodes of a game show is not criteria that proves notability. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Madden, he received media attention not only for appearing on Jeopardy [2], [3], but also for hiking across the country for charity [4], [5]. Zagalejo^^^ 01:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Jacksonville.com link is merely a short-answer interview where he responds to questions about embarrassing moments, favorite films, etc. and does not include anything of substance. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not basing Madden notability on that article alone. It's just one part of the picture. Zagalejo^^^ 02:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Two of these articles (Larissa Kelly and Jerome Vered) already survived AfDs. Another (Chuck Forrest) was a DYK. For these reasons alone these articles should not have been listed together. faithless (^speak) 04:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, Chuck Forrest must be retained, given that it was a DYK; it would be absurd to delete a DYK item. --Punchi (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I am just basing it on my look at the first one listed. While the article doesn't list references, a Google News search shows coverage for the winner in multiple papers over several weeks. If the other articles are too small, they can always be merged, but there is no reason to delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All The articles provide reliable and verifiable sources to support a legitimate claim of notability, and community consensus supports the continued existence and creation of such articles. Alansohn (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—How/why are these people more notable than other game show champions/contestants who do not have articles? Being a champion on a game show and winning $xxx,xxx combined with anecdotal mentions in articles or being part of a human interest story does not make a person notable. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have hundreds of articles on contest winners in their incarnation that has been most popular since Wikipedia was started, the reality show contestant. Both old style and new style game shows are well referenced by the media. Denigrating the references as "human interest", doesn't fly, they are still reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator appears to be arguing WP:ALLORNOTHING. I do agree with those who request unbundling, as there are several champions who have enough coverage either (1) for an event article on their appearance on Jeopardy! or (2) have been notable for more than one event that they no longer fall under WP:BLP1E. RJaguar3 | u | t 13:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ALLORNOTHING is not an argument I'm making as other people, originally notable for being game show champions, have articles on Wikipedia that were not included in this AFD (e.g., Ken Jennings, Charles Van Doren, etc). Most of the arguments for keeping the articles are in line with WP:EVERYTHING, which still does not address my argument that the nine articles nominated fall under WP:BLP1E. Ken Jennings clearly is notable for the overwhelming media coverage, documented ratings increase, works and appearances outside of Jeopardy!, etc. Charles Van Doren was part of a major scandal that ultimately resulted in federal intervention. Dan Pawson (part of this AFD), on the other hand, won $170,902 on Jeopardy! in 2007 and won a Tournament of Champions a few years later. This does not make him a notable person that warrants an article here. Larissa Kelly won $223k and later had an article published in a magazine, but the bulk of the article discusses her Jeopardy! appearance and includes some anecdotal unsourced records she holds/held as a female contestant. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why not merge into List of Jeopardy! contestants or for those significant enough to merit their own article, moving the content to Larissa Kelly's Jeopardy! appearance, for example? RJaguar3 | u | t 16:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already addressed that at least for some contestants, there may be enough coverage of their non-Jeopardy! activities that covering the person could be permissible (as in the case of Timanus). The rest could be merged or renamed as per my comment above, not deleted. Regardless, each contestant has individual merits and should have been listed separately. I'd move to close this debate without prejudice so that the nominator can individually nominate each article (see WP:BUNDLE). RJaguar3 | u | t 16:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because a list of Jeopardy! contestants is not a notable topic, just as a list of Pillsbury Bake-Off competitors is not. These people on their own are not notable—merging all the articles into one list still does not address the notability issue. There's also no reason to have one article renamed "Mr. X's Jeopardy! Appearance" if the original article subject still is not notable and falls under WP:BLP1E. The articles as they stand center only on the Jeopardy! appearances and only anecdotally mention other activities, which still are not notable (submitting an article to a science fiction magazine, walking across the country for charity, etc.).

Except that list would be notable, since the information came from reliable sources. It would be no more, or no less notable by Wikipedia standards than a list of Super Bowl or World Series or US Open winners or any reality competition. I am sure I can make a list of Pillsbury Bake-Off winner too, now that Google has scanned millions of pages of magazines that would contain the names of winners. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliably-sourced info is not criteria that solely-proves a subject as notable. See WP:SOURCESEARCH/WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:ITEXISTS. The Super Bowl/World Series/US Open competitions are major sporting events seen nationally and/or globally, include major corporate sponsorships, etc. Creating a List of Jeopardy! Champions merely serves as WP:LISTCRUFT and would turn into an indiscriminate list of information. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You love to point to essays and ignore the fundamental Wikipedia rule: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true: WP:GNG states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I know that notability is not the only concern. WP:SOURCESEARCH and the other links you provide refer to statements like "a Google search of this contestant turned up over nine thousand results, so she must be notable." In this case (with Madden and Timanus, and I can check the others), there is no claim of myriads of sources; rather, actual sources have been given to demonstrate independent coverage in reliable third-party sources, the sine qua non of notability. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:BLP1E tells us whenever it is deemed that the subject is notable only in connection with one event: "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." RJaguar3 | u | t 19:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case these articles should be redirected to Jeopardy!, not an article listing every champion to ever appear on the show. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You using the strawman fallacy, no one suggested a list of every winner, just the notable ones. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intending to list every champion the show ever had. The name of the article implies that only notable contestants (read: have multiple independent reliable sources verifying the claims about their appearence) will be listed. WP:BLP1E is not the same as WP:N. Unquestionably, Madden and Timanus (and probably lots of the others; I haven't really checked those) have multiple independent reliable sources about their appearance on Jeopardy!. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, if you feel closing the debate will be more productive, I'm in favor of that and will individually nominate each article for deletion and restart the process. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trainwreck - relist/procedural keep all This is a mass nomination where some of the articles would clearly be kept, others might be mergeable, and I don't think any should be flat-out deleted. Ray^Talk 19:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How do many articles about professional athletes notable only for holding a record (such as John Isner) not violate WP:BLP1E? (Isner's article has lots of career notes, but he wouldn't be notable to anyone outside of indiscriminate tennis aficionados if he hadn't broken a record in a single event.) 271828182 (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E keeps expanding in scope, sadly most of people of note in history are WP:BLP1E. Someone recently argued a WP:BLP1E deletion because the subject only had a lengthy New York Times obituary, and that one event, his death was a WP:BLP1E violation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more clearly I perceive BLP1E's flaws. The criterion being used is really about the notability of the event, not the person. This is especially clear when you read the explanation of what counts as an event. In five years, Joe the Plumber and Chesley Sullenberger will be BLP1E violations. A "floating" standard of notability is a poor policy guideline for a long-term project like WP. 271828182 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the most confusing guideline I have read at Wikipedia, all I get out of it is that if you assassinate the president, you may or may not be able to have your own article. It is clearly one or the other, but I am not sure which. The second helpful thing is telling me that a single event may last a second or several days. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have articles for nearly every sports figure in every sport, even if their careers were not the least bit notable. Why should this be any different?Spman (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 5 October 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.