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. (non-admin closure) — Berrely •  ^Talk∕ _Contribs 09:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

List of Jeopardy! contestants

List of Jeopardy! contestants (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

WP:LISTCRUFT Article with indiscriminate list of some but not all contestants on Jeopardy!. Descriptions contain trivia such as "Won $xx,xxx before being defeated", "Biggest-winning contestant under 30", etc. Any contestants who meet WP:N on their own have an individual article and are tagged with Category:Jeopardy! contestants. Indiscriminate list is one factor but not sole factor for proposed deletion.

No threshold, rules, scope or standard applied as to who is/is not included. Content is based upon individual editors' ideas. No clear reason as to who is/is not "notable" enough to be featured.

There's no debate that there are sources for some of the individual episodes on which contestants appeared (although there are several unsourced entries), but there are no sources about the topic of Jeopardy! contestants treated as a whole. This idea is also wrapped up in that a list of contestants is not viable under the WP:BLP1E rules. Anyone who meets WP:BLP for inclusion can be tagged with Category:Jeopardy! contestants.

Prior AFD was closed after nominator withdrew. Keep comments in prior AFD are essentially "it's a solution to having individual contestant pages", yet those pages would certainly not exist due to WP:BLP1E anyway. AldezD ( talk) 16:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. AldezD ( talk) 16:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD ( talk) 16:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. AldezD ( talk) 16:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I'd say delete based on the current page, but is there any commonality in the current entries on the page that could be used as the selection criteria? Maybe one or more pages such as "public figures," "contestants who won over $X00k," or "contestants with an X-game winning streak?" The current page seems to be a mixture of random trivia, so it definitely needs to be changed regardless of the outcome. TTN ( talk) 16:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment - "No threshold, rules, scope or standard." I've asked the complainant to propose some, but he refuses to do it. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep WP:LISTCRUFT is neither policy nor guideline; it's just a crude insult per WP:CRUFTCRUFT. The nomination seems to prefer the equivalent category but, per guideline WP:CLN, the existence of the category demonstrates that the list is valid too. And it's easy to find independent evidence of notability too such as USA Today and so it passes guideline WP:LISTN. Applicable policies therefore include WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉( talk) 21:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Revised nomination to strike "Listcruft". AldezD ( talk) 02:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I've concluded that this is a bad-faith nomination. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC) No, more like a "bad reasoning" nomination. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment Any list article needs WP:LISTCRITERIA, and these should ideally be the starting point from which the list is constructed, not something we add to a pre-existing list. If we include every contestant, we end up with an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that is way too broad per WP:SALAT. I don't think it would be appropriate to have the threshold for inclusion be "subject is WP:Notable, i.e. has a stand-alone Wikipedia article", because some notable Jeopardy! contestants are not notable for being Jeopardy! contestants but for completely different reasons ( John McCain is an obvious example).
  We have to ask ourselves what WP:LISTPURPOSE this is meant to serve. If it's meant to be informational, we need to come up with inclusion (and perhaps also exclusion) criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. If it's meant to be purely navigational, the solution would be to remove all the prose and simply have a list of links (though I frankly don't see the point in retaining such a list). TompaDompa ( talk) 14:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • At the very least, the title is misleading. Taken literally, it would imply every contestant in the history of the program, which run into many thousands. A better title would be something like "winningest Jeopardy contestants", or maybe "Jeopardy contestants who qualified for the Tournament of Champions", which would be effectively the same list. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Comment—@ Baseball Bugs: Tournament of Champions article with list of contesants was AFD'd and closed as redirect to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events#Tournament of Champions in 2020. AldezD ( talk) 15:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Keeping it all to just one list could be an improvement. The list article under discussion here was created in 2010, by a user who last edited a year ago. It could be that some overlap now exists, which could be remedied by some skillful merging. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep I think there is sourced info for this type of list as their appearances would be discussed, even if not to the extent that GNG would support standalone articles. Whether it should be limited to a certain number of appearances, dollars won or other issues to make it more navigable can be solved editorially. Star Mississippi 22:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• TNT This is not a bad-faith nomination and it's poor form to accuse that. This article is in poor state and should not be just a bunch of mini-biographies of otherwise non-notable players. I think the concept of this list is welcome, but many, many players have performed excellently in regular play and tournaments, reached some sort of placement toward a superlative, or otherwise distinguished themselves, so the list needs to be reworked to have better inclusion criteria. Jerry Frankel and Eric Newhouse, for example, seem to have been relatively routine winners and don't fit in here, and Richard Cordray is notable for things outside Jeopardy. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per reasons listed by User:Andrew Davidson and Star Mississippi above. Paintspot Infez ( talk) 01:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment—See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of greatest Jeopardy! champions. An earlier format of this article was previously deleted per consensus in a bundle AFD in 2006. AldezD ( talk) 13:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Is there any article which lists the top winners in terms of money and/or consecutive games won? By the way, the presumably official website has a list of the top 10 in each of several categories: [1] Amodio would currently fit in the 10th row. Presumably they're taking your suggestion and not updating it until his run ends. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Comment—Other than using the link as a reference, adding direct content from [2] here would fall under WP:COPYVIO. The vast majority of game show articles do not include list of top X winners. Many have already been deleted through AFD:
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biggest wins and losses on Wheel of Fortune — Content originally merged to main article then later removed.
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? top prize winners — U.S. version article no longer lists all top prize winners.
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records (2nd nomination)

AldezD ( talk) 17:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• At least one of which died by your own hand. Presumably you're trying to deal this one a death blow for the same reason. So much for WP:WHAAOE. If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Doesn't matter who nominated them. They were deleted by community consensus for the reasons and guidelines linked in the discussions. This article is a similar enough situation as those to mention here. AldezD ( talk) 22:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply

*If this list gets retained, and hence your "reasons" invalidated, maybe the one (or ones) you killed earlier should also be reinstated. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The complainant thinks he owns this page too. If he didn't want his previous deletion efforts commented on, he shouldn't have brought them up. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment I think it's fairly safe to say that a 2006 and 2007 consensus are not necessarily indicative of current consensus. 2018 could be, but that's not a given either. Star Mississippi 13:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per reasoning of User:Andrew Davidson and User:Star Mississippi above. Staib ( talk) 13:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• FYI, the current champion has won 13 straight games and over 400,000 bucks. [3] He's now tied for 6th place for consecutive wins, and is in 5th place for regular (non-tournament) game show winnings; and is only a couple hundred dollars behind 4th place, so with consolation prizes he'll move into 4th on Monday even if he loses (unless consolation prizes don't count). ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Baseball Bugs: The current champion is unrelated to this AFD discussion. If you feel he meets WP:GNG and addresses issues in WP:BLP1E, create an article. AldezD ( talk) 15:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Why bother? According to you, he's a nobody, and I expect you would immediately move to delete the article, to add another notch to your deletionist belt. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • @ Baseball Bugs: You are posting things in this discussion unrelated to the AFD topic that question your WP:COMPETENTcy as an editor. This deletion discussion is of the list of contestants as a whole. The current champion is unrelated to this AFD discussion. If you feel he meets WP:GNG and addresses issues in WP:BLP1E, create an article. AldezD ( talk) 22:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • The fact you keep bringing up irrelevancies could speak to your own competence. As does your edit-warring on another article today. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
          • Seriously. What are you talking about? You're adding irrelevant information to a deletion discussion and veering off topic of whether the List of Jeopardy! contestants article should be deleted or kept. I'm responding that the current champion is not relevant to this discussion, and then you say I'm bringing up irrelevancies. This is not the purpose of an AFD, nor is it relevant to this AFD subject, which is the List of Jeopardy! contestants article. Please stay on-topic. AldezD ( talk) 13:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
            • You yourself brought up a couple of your past deletionist conquests. Those are likewise off-topic. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep with comment: As a general rule, I would suggest that any person who has an individual article be included in any criteria for this list. Those who would otherwise meet WP:GNG (at least two verifiable, independent sources for said contestant) but whose sole fame is due to Jeopardy! (and thus would not have enough info to justify an article of their own) would be candidates to be listed as they are now. That would, necessarily, increase the amount of eligible entries, given how much media coverage Jeopardy! contestants get—and how inconsistent that coverage can be—but it is a firm criteria, and a preferable alternative to destruction of the page (which would in turn break a whole lot of links and redirects to contestants who do not have full articles of their own yet and thus cause massive disruption). J. Myrle Fuller ( talk) 00:27, 9 August 2021 (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.