Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Pawson


 * 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  Delete. Nobody supported an individual article about this subject. Mandsford 20:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Dan Pawson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Earlier AfDs related to article: 

Although the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Recentism is factor, as there has been little/no coverage since the initial appearance on a game show. WP:BLP1E can also be applied.

Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following:
 * "Winning...on a game show does not strike me as meeting the threshold for notability, even if it leads to a couple of additional appearances down the road."
 * "It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant."
 * "Winning [$xx,000] or temporarily holding the winnings record do not establish notability."
 * "Clearly a figure of transient notability."

Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD.

 Sottolacqua  (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The nominator should withdraw the above nomination and re-nominate with remarks addressed to this individual article and its notability rather than a generalized cut-and-paste nomination which may falsely attribute quotations of anonymous other editors, out of context, to this nomination. Robert K S (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment–Being the Nth highest winner on a game show does not make a person notable. The reasons for nomination within this discussion are accurate based upon the article subject. Earlier AFDs are referenced since this subject's claim of notability, the same arguments for deletion and same arguments for non-notability apply to this subject.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My reservations about the deletion of this article are less strong than any of the others, but it is still improper of you to use unattributed and inapplicable quotations in support of your nomination, and to act as if each one of them carried the weight of a "delete" rationale, and to cut-and-paste such quotations under numerous AfD nominations, and for this reason I ask that you withdraw and re-nominate to start this nomination off on proper footing and footing that doesn't rely on false justifications. Robert K S (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My reasons for nominating this article for deletion follow similar arguments listed in the other AFDs, and I have used the quotations referenced to make my case for deletion. That is not an unscrupulous action to take for beginning a deletion discussion. The justification is equal to arguments that have been made for inclusion in other AFDs that also can be applied to this article by editors who feel this article should not be deleted.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "I have used the quotations referenced to make my case for deletion. That is not an unscrupulous action..." Yes, it is.  As you admit, you have taken quotations that are unattributed and may not even apply to this article at all in order to bolster a deletion argument.  That is dishonest. Robert K S (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have linked the earlier deletion discussions above, making no attempt to hide their original source. My nomination states that this article was proposed for deletion because the "Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following..." I nominated this article for deletion because the (lack of) notability argument used in favor of deletion within those discussions is similar to the case I am making in this discussion.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am repeating myself. Failing to attribute the quotes and link each one exactly to its source (e.g., as a diff) is a concealment.  Applying the same quotes to numerous AfD nominations disingenuously represents them in each case as applying to that individual AfD, and is an act of bad faith done, as you have admitted, to bolster a deletion argument, i.e., to make it appear as though the AfDs have more specific support than they actually have, which is a misrepresentation. Robert K S (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a non-notable trivia stub. Here's the claim to fame, per the article:  the sixth-biggest non-tournament money-winner from winning episodes in Jeopardy! history. That dog don't hunt. Pretty much unsourced to boot... —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.
 * Delete Only claim no notability is winning at a game show, and thus he is only notable for one thing. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  14:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge multiple contestants who have no other coverage into a list article, such as List of notable Jeopardy! contestants. No reason for each person to have his or her own article, based on my brief review of the evidence, but these appear to have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources.  Thus, if merged into a list, there's a clear potential for an FLC to come out of this. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Jeopardy! contestants -- Google news search shows Boston Globe articles both after his initial run and ToC appearance, as well as other sources (WHDH-TV). RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  05:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:BLP1E. Merge target does not exist at present. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.