Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! auditions
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeopardy! auditions
- )
total cruft, I mean, this is a page, in an encyclopedia, on how to get on a game show? Violates much of
WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information based on acting as a how-to guide. Had prod, but was removed without reason by editor. Booshakla 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- Keep; this article was spun off the larger Jeopardy! article when it got too big. As an aside, this whole "this-is-cruft, that's-cruft" culling trend is disturbing to me; it's hamhandedly pruning a lot of the most valuable content from Wikipedia. (I say "most valuable" because much of what seems to be disappearing is the discrimate aggregation of notable content that distinguishes Wikipedia from drier encyclopedias.) Robert K S 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should point out that this editor has about half of the edits on this page, making for a possible ]
- Hm. I probably edited for clarity and may have added some details, but I am not the architect of the article and it is not a vanity page about me. I have no vested personal interest in keeping it around. Robert K S 09:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should point out that this editor has about half of the edits on this page, making for a possible ]
- Delete. A whole article describing an audition process? Utterly trivial and not encyclopaedic in the slightest. -- Necrothesp 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeep, pending references I think one of the things that makes Jeopardy! unique from other game shows is its audition process. Contestants can't appear on Jeopardy! unless they are able to demonstrate their knowledge. I believe surely there are articles and books written about the Jeopardy! audition process. If those sources can appear and are discussed in the nominated article, then I believe the subject can demonstrate notability. Tinlinkin 03:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can think of at least six books off the top of my head. The Jeopardy! Book, This is Jeopardy!, How to Get on Jeopardy! and Win!, Secrets of the Jeopardy! Champions, and the recent Brainiac and Prisoner of Trebekistan. Art Fleming's book also deals in small part with the old audition process, IIRC. The number of newspaper articles is innumerable. Robert K S 08:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because an article can be sourced does not always mean that the topic should have its own article. I think it probably should have a trimmed section in the main Jeopardy page, but this is just sad to have on it's own. Part of being an editor is editing, if something is "too long" for the main page, then trim it down. Booshakla 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Why must a large subject be limited to a single article rather than a family of related articles? Should we limit the American Civil War to a single article? Robert K S 10:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an encyclopedia, not a junkyard. You can't compare a game show on television to something as historical, important and well-documented at the Civil War. There should not be tons of articles split off from marginal subjects, plain and simple. There should not be as many articles for Jeopardy as there are now. C'mon, a article on the set design? That's pure cruft right there. Probably will be deleted soon anyway. And if you don't like it, that's just too bad. Booshakla 11:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can think of a few quantitative ways of determining the relative significance of various topics, such as page views, number of edits... Robert K S 12:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an encyclopedia, not a junkyard. You can't compare a game show on television to something as historical, important and well-documented at the Civil War. There should not be tons of articles split off from marginal subjects, plain and simple. There should not be as many articles for Jeopardy as there are now. C'mon, a article on the set design? That's pure cruft right there. Probably will be deleted soon anyway. And if you don't like it, that's just too bad. Booshakla 11:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Why must a large subject be limited to a single article rather than a family of related articles? Should we limit the American Civil War to a single article? Robert K S 10:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because an article can be sourced does not always mean that the topic should have its own article. I think it probably should have a trimmed section in the main Jeopardy page, but this is just sad to have on it's own. Part of being an editor is editing, if something is "too long" for the main page, then trim it down. Booshakla 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The main notable topic that interests people and can be presented in an encyclopedic manner. --Aude (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Total bunk, please read ]
- That essay has some great advice, but as its header stresses, it's the opinion of its authors, and it isn't policy. It also seems to exhaust virtually every argument that might be made for an article's deletion or preservation! Robert K S 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Appropriate per WP:SUMMARY due to the length of the main Jeopardy! article. Andy Saunders 00:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another possible ]
- Why's this? Because I might possibly have expertise in a given subject? Should AfD be ruled by those who know nothing about the article in question? I feel ]
- Keep and rename to "Jeopardy! audition process". --Candy-Panda 08:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea re: the rename. I believe it is not advised to move an article while it is still under deletion discussion? Robert K S 09:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete the argument "it was taking too much space in the main article" is not a real reason to delete it. it should just be a section in the main article, and pared down, this is an encyclopedia, not a place where every info bit can be, you're supposed to be an editor, meaning you edit things. Biggspowd 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of topics on Wikipedia which are discussed in families of articles of appropriate sizes, organized by categories and footer banner templates. The basic argument behind all the delete votes seems to be "a game show doesn't deserve more than one article". This assumption needs to be evaluated objectively, taking note of the volume of research and publication devoted to game shows and Jeopardy! in particular. Robert K S 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - interesting and informative, but constitutes ]
- Keep. Jeopardy has an audition process. Writing about it is reasonable. Per Aude, it's reasonable to cover this in a separate article (although the coverage in the main article may need some expansion). Although this is unsourced, I fundamentally don't believe that the information here, by and large is unverifiable. I think we can afford to be eventualist here, although this article should be tagged for cleanup: it's not in great shape. Mangojuicetalk 17:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, pending references and rename per --The Weakest Link or someother game show with a shorter life span and less cultural relevance, then my opinion may swing the other way. But Jeopardy! has been running strong in its current incarnation for 25-some years, and the audition process is an important part of that because it's primarily a skill-based competition. Caknuck 17:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For a show as long-running and notable as Jeopardy!, the unique audition process is non-trivial and encyclopedic as well. Editors above have listed at least 6 sources. The article describes the process, and is not intrinsically a how-to guide. –Pomte 09:07, 9 March 2007 (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.