Talk:Montclair High School (New Jersey)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Jamie Sadler

Please discuss here before unilaterally deleting additions to alumni. Thanks. 208.127.115.247 23:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the deletion of Jamie Sadler from famous alumni and noticed that it was reverted.

I did not make the initial deletion but I strongly support removing this person from the list of famous alumni.

He is simply not noteworthy enough. He was a contestant on a game show....there are LOTS of contestants on game shows. He wasn't even on a long-standing game show and, the million dollar win notwithstanding, he hasn't really done anything significant. It's not like he was the next Ken Jennings or anything.

I support removal of this name and I think the collective thinking of those few who watch this page will agree.

JasonCNJ 02:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you discussing the deletion before simply reverting it. I strongly disagree with your position, and I'll happily explain why.

I completely agree with you that there are lots of contestants on lots of game shows, and that alone does not merit notability. However, it's not his appearance alone that I believe confers notability, but the accomplishments that are attendant to that appearance. This individual marked several "firsts" in television game show history.

He was the first person to ever win one million dollars on a game show on the CBS network. Ever. Given the long history of game show programming on that network, that alone is significant. Second, he was the youngest person to ever win one million dollars on any network, in any game show ever. The first argument notwithstanding, that too, alone should merit notability. And third, he was the first contestant ever to win one million dollars in a game show's premiere episode. Individually you may quibble with each accomplishment, but together the fact that they confer notability, I believe, should be unquestionable.

Additionally, while again, I absolutely agree that a mere appearance is not notable, I would simply point out that there are hundreds, if not thousands of Wiki entries, for people who have successfully parlayed their "15 minutes" into notability. Your example of Ken Jennings is itself an excellent case in point. And I would also remind you that we are not even discussing notability for his own entry, but simply inclusion among other "notables" on a list of famous alum for a high school. Again, the category on this page is "famous" alums, not "notable" ones. And given that a Google search revealed hundreds of articles on him from reputable sources including the New York Post, the New York Daily News, CBS News, the Associated Press, United Press Intl, Access Hollywood, Entertainment Tonight et al; dozens of local television stations; and several respected regional newspapers of record from coast to coast, even if you exclude all the articles on tons of web publications; I believe this record easily meets any "notability" standard, and at minimum, certainly meets the standard for inclusion in "famous" alumni of this high school.

Finally, I would also note that another "famous alumni" is already listed on this page. That individual was a contestant on American Idol who came in 6th place! My immediate question when I saw the name of "Anwar Robinson" was, "who"? Again, I understand that Wiki does not confer notability as many on these pages have tried, perhaps even with Mr. Robinson's entry - but Wiki absolutely should reflect notability when it is conferred by other reputable sources of record.

And just so you know, I have no personal bias or motivation here. I have zero personal knowledge of this individual. I am in fact, a proud Californian, and the show was taped in New York, and this person is from New Jersey! So no personal bias, just an interest in getting it right, and a long time fan of game shows. And hopefully you will appreciate that I did do the requisite due diligence before concluding that this individual did indeed meet any reasonable standard for notability.

Anecdotally, there is a website called "tvgameshows.net", apparently of some long standing, and respected reputation within the game show industry. If you check it out, you'll notice they've practically canonized this kid for his accomplishments. Thanks. 208.127.115.247 03:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but none of these things strike me as particularly notable. He was a gameshow contestant that won the second highest prize on the first episode of some gameshow that cannot be judged for its longevity or staying power because it is just the first episode. Even still, I doubt a year from now anybody will care that this kid won the $1,000,000 prize since I'm sure there will have been several $10,000,000 prize winners. Simply having one's name in a bunch of newspapers does not make one notable enough to have an article. Consider, just for example, the many mentions of various victims of 9/11 in the news. Though each died a significant death, that alone does not make them notable enough to have an entry on Wikipedia. I'm going to remove the name again because this is not generally the way notability is handled on Wikipedia. If you feel the person is notable, please create the article. I will subsequently bring it up for deletion where you can argue these points again. There, community consensus will be reached and we'll see if it's notable enough or not. For this you have to create an account. Thanks, JHMM13^(Disc) 16:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you believe the criteria for notability hinges more upon the longevity of the program than the amount of the winning? Seems to me an arbitrary standard at best. Would your argument be the same if the show ran a year and no one matched this amount? And even if someone did, wouldn't that simply make them the 2nd or 3rd person to do it, certainly less notable than the 1st? And your suggestion that a year from now no one will care because you're "sure there will be several $10 million dollar winners" is equally based upon nothing but speculation. Again, does that suggest that if your prognostication is wrong and a year from now there are no other winners at this level, then you will concede the merit of inclusion? How is this less notable than Ken Jennings? Or Anwar Robinson who already is in this article? If Jennings is notable for his number of appearances, Sadler is notable for the amount of prize winnings. Simple. And your contention that "having one's name in a bunch of newspapers does not make one notable" is actually inherently contradictory. By definition that is precisely what it does! I also believe you forget we're not discussing a new article, but a single line in an existing one. And I must say, while I found your reference to 911 victims rather offensive, on one hand, on the other, I found it also lacked validity, because using your own criteria, they are all linked to a single tragic event as a group, and are not individually identifiable, so the analogy doesn't apply. Listen, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine, but I do not understand your persistent rush to unilaterally delete items until a consensus has been reached. Certainly the opinions of others matter as well, yes? I for one would have welcomed additional points of view before a decision was reached, and see no real urgent need to rush to judgment. Would you not have respected the final decision of that consensus? I have no interest in an edit war, but I do think you made up your mind without considering the other side and are only interested in deletions based upon your singular judgment, which I find unfortunate. FYI, this individual's name also appears in other related articles as well - because of other editors I might add. I hope that you would not feel the need to embark on a delete crusade with those editors as well. And while I have no interest in creating a page for this individual, I won't be at all surprised when someone else does, and I believe you may find that in a larger consensus community your arguments, at least as presented here, may lack the necessary persuasion. I'll contribute my thoughts then as well. Thanks. 208.127.115.247 17:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that Sadler meets the notability standards and I support JHMM13's proposed process: If you think he does meet the standard, create a page for him and link to that page from the "Famous Alumni" section. The AfD process will determine community consensus. If a page for him survives AfD, then I will drop any objections to his inclusion in the list on this page.

To address some of your earlier points...

I would be fine changing the title of the section to "Notable Alumni" instead of famous alumni.
I would be more than happy to remove "Anwar Robinson" if he didn't have a wiki entry. The fact that he does means, to me, that the community has decided he is noteworthy enough for an entry and I don't think it would be proper to remove his name from this list...even though I don't think he's very notable or important.
While his achievements may be of interest to a small group of game-show fans and within the industry, I do not believe Sadler's accomplishments are particularly noteworthy. Game show prizes have been rising for the last few years...the idea that the history of CBS gameshows has never given out a $1 million prize is more a function of the fact that they have fewer gameshows on today, one of the longest running ones (The Price is Right) without large prize money, and were big in the game-show market when a significantly lesser prize was still extraordinary.
I point out the existance of the Ken Jennings article because that individual, it appears to me, has satisified the bar of notability. His appearance was the longest-running in Jeopardy history; his run increased Jeopardy's ratings by nearly 22% over other episodes; he broke into mainstread media with appearances, interviews, and endorsements deals following his win. He has a significant entry and clearly broke into public consciousness. Jamie Sadler, however great his achievements may have been, simply has not yet done anything along those lines.
I do think that the longevity of the gameshow is an important factor. Frankly, Power of 10 may not even be around for very long. Or they may end up with lots of $1 million winners. Power of 10 certainly hasn't reached into the public consciousness that American Idol or Who Wants To Be A Millionaire or even Deal or No Deal has. Without a history by which to judge his achievements, we're not able to declare that he is notable by any real standard.

Given the reasons above and the lack of an entry on Sadler, I agree with the deletion of his name from this list. I appreciate your detailed explanation but I disagree with your position.

JasonCNJ 17:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your own detailed responses. I'll try to respond succinctly this time:

The reason I questioned the longevity of the show as a factor in the methodology for notability was simply a practical one. Let's say for the sake of argument the show runs forever and has regular million dollar winners. Isn't there something notable in being the first? And how unfortunate if by then no one even remembers the first. What will we say with their first $10 million dollar winner, which frankly, isn't ever going to happen because the game requires that someone with a million dollars in hand risk it for only a 1-11 chance at the ten million. Maybe Trump would take those odds, but I can't envision anyone else that reckless - especially someone who had reached that level to begin with, by accurately calculating the odds as the game requires. But would $10 million be notable?
I simply believe that we should be willing to occasionally defer to the "experts" from time to time, and in the game show industry webpage that I originally referenced, they referred to the Sadler win as "historic". You may call it hyperbole, but since I'd seen the word regularly used elsewhere in discussing it, I was persuaded.
And please don't delete Anwar Robinson. That wasn't my intent. My intent was only comparison. As for the Jennings analysis, I would be curious as to when his notability actually began. Would it have been with his win, or with all the subsequent notoriety he's been able to obtain by parlaying that win into more? It's not a rhetorical question, I honestly don't know. Equally, if Sadler begins popping up on television appearances, does his notability increase exponentially?
And please don't change the heading either. Actually I had believed the "Famous" alum standard was lower than a "Notable" threshold, simply because many of the current alums listed are "famous", but I'm not sure how "notable" they are as individuals outside of their bands, football team, or performance in "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure", which was a movie that didn't exactly create a lasting career for this individual.
Wow! As I write this, I have the television on in the background, and CBS just ran a promo saying "19 year old Jamie Sadler became the youngest game show millionaire in network tv history!" Apparently then it's not just a CBS record. If they run that promo all season maybe that will confer notability. It may also save the show from cancellation - which even improves upon the 22% ratings spike you attributed to Ken Jennings. But listen, your objections were thoughtful, and well-reasoned, and I certainly can respect and appreciate them. Even more, I appreciate your willingness to engage in a dialogue before unilaterally taking action. Perhaps this will become moot if another editor creates an article, and this would simply become a link. In any event, I said I would accept the consensus and I will, certainly no need to further belabor the point. But thanks again. 208.127.115.247 18:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that you're more right about this than I am, and I'm sure the AfD community would love to hear you reasons. As a fairly long term user that has spent far too much time in that community, I can only suggest to you that this person would probably not pass our notability guidelines, but I could be wrong. As it stands, it's a lot easier to track consensus and get together a bunch of people who are knowledgeable on the subject by going the article creation - afd route than arguing about it here, even though many good points in both directions are given. The reason why I remove the name is because this isn't the place for this discussion, not because I'm wholly convinced you are wrong. Trust me, I've been wrong enough times to know that my knowledge of Wikipedia policy is far from perfect. However, I do know that this isn't the place for an argument on the notability of Jamie Sadler. I've always felt it was odd that there are a bunch of names in "notable alumni/members/etc." that don't have articles :-D. Given the nature of our AfD process and claims to notability, I'm sure you can see how funny it is. Anyway, if you're up to it, I'd be more than happy to help you out in any process along the way if you need it. Thanks again, JHMM13^(Disc) 19:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional comments. Your explanation makes your actions seem more reasonable to me now. I do understand the paradox of having a link without actually having an article. But given the challenges of the AfD process, I can even see a benefit to it. Say for example if a "notable alumni/members/etc" is notable by local standards, e.g. a long-standing community activist, or person who saved someone in a fire, etc., that local celebrity makes them notable, but certainly wouldn't pass muster here for an entire article. See my point? A recent example in the news: remember the 20 yr. old Jeremy Hernandez, who saved that busload of kids in Minneapolis when the bridge over the Mississippi River collapsed? He was hailed locally and nationally as a hero, and there is an extensive article on the incident I-35W Mississippi River bridge, even the president wanted a photo-op with him, but yet there is no article on him. Shouldn't there be, or is it just me? Or by contrast, Jason McElwain, the autistic kid who made those 3-pointers in his high school basketball game, not only has an article, but a rather long one. Notability is just a very tricky, very subjective issue. Perhaps my view is just to be more inclusive, rather than exclusive, as long as the article is reasonably justifiable. I mean at Montclair H.S., I'd bet they are bustin' buttons proud of Jamie Sadler. May even have his name on the school sign out front. And I'm sure there isn't a kid or local administrator who isn't aware of him now, probably not a single person in his entire community from what I've read. And like I said, the CBS Network is hyping this kid literally every 10 minutes in its promos. But that alone doesn't work here. You're right, it is rather curious. But as I say, I didn't want to start a war, and I'm probably not the one to write the article, although I do appreciate your offer of help. But it would be interesting to see what the larger community thinks on the subject. And I do appreciate your clarification. Thanks again. 208.127.115.247 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

From my standpoint, I'm uncertain on the longterm notability, but I see no reason why the individual could not be included as long as appropriate sources from newspapers and/or magazines are provided that talk about the individual and the connection to MHS, which would at least be a strong claim of notability that satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. As long as the requisite sources are provided, I would have no objection to inclusion at this point in time, and would be even more satisfied if an appropriate article were written. There is no need to concoct a "who is more (or less) notable" standard. Alansohn 01:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I included the citation link with the original edit, but there are obviously several more sources available online. If you are interested in writing an article, I would be willing to offer any assistance I can, I'd just rather not begin the article on my own. A good starting point may be found under the heading "Notable Winnings" in the Power of 10 article, which I cleaned up before the discussion on this article, but I am also aware of several other good sources with additional info. I especially appreciate your comments on the notability standard, as I believe we share the same view. Many thanks. 208.127.115.247 03:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Montclair High School (New Jersey). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Alen Hadzic

As he was banned for life from fencing for sexual misconduct that occurred in part here, it is relevant to refer to that here. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:ECFF:F3B4:C2C9:CC67 (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources indicate that any sexual misconduct occurred at Montclair High School. As it stands, the material here added about Hadzic is WP:UNDUE; it belongs in his article, where it already appears, not here. As such, the excessive material unrelated to Montclair High School will be removed. Alansohn (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment

MHS has also served as a shooting location for several other television commercials, including a Tylenol commercial (my favorite because one of the classrooms was my freshman year homeroom, and the "principal" leans against my locker...), as well as a currently running (as of April, 2006) anti-drug commercial. Don't know if its worth adding, but just throwing in my $0.02. Davepetr 02:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)