Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Madden

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Allen3 talk 16:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

David_Madden
While he's the current champion on Jeopardy! and dominating his games so far, his streak really isn't long enough to be noteworthy quite yet. People have done better than he has and lost sooner. OntarioQuizzer 03:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I've already commented on this in the main article but I feel this also bears repeating here. Whether or not the encylopedic nature of an article is in dispute does not mean it's an excuse to goof around and pretend this is an Uncyclopedia article. We do have to maintain a certain professional standard in our article writing, and certainly avoid inserting biased opinions meant primarily to mock instead of inform. Like I alluded to, there's Uncyclopedia if you want to goof around that badly. Also, I think someone should add a clean-up tag (maybe that would be more appropriate than a VfD tag?) User:24.9.10.235
 * Keep. He's already broken Tom Walsh's record (two, actually). If we delete his article we might as well delete Tom's and merge with the main Jeopardy! or Ken Jennings article then, going by the logic by some here. User:24.9.10.235
 * Well you can't break a record that's already been broken; it doesn't work that way, or else I would have broken the 1880 land speed record on my way to breakfast this morning. -R. fiend 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * According to your logic, Wade Boggs' (whose about to be inducted into Cooperstown in a few days) entry should be denied because he never has done anything truly exceptional, or John Elway or Dan Marino should be removed from the Hall of Fame because they've never done anything truly Earth-shattering such as Terry Bradshaw's Super Bowl winning record (hell, Marino has never won a single Super Bowl!). For that matter, according to the same logic Tom Walsh's page needs to be verified for deletion too, since Madden (let alone Jennings) have proven it's hardly an insurmountable figure (let's face it, it's only seven games). The reason why it is an important milestone is because this is only the second time that record has been surpassed (although I personally believe it will hardly be the last) but for now it's at least as notable as Tom Walsh's old record.
 * Nope, I'm just saying he didn't break a record, which is true. And, indeed, I'm no great proponent of Walsh's page either, but (like it or not) he did hold a few records, which Daveyboy has not done. And if old whatshername had realized that the Ode to Joy was not 70 minutes long (no matter how slow its played) Dave would be yesterday's news already. I'm not saying he won't be the next big thing in game show contestants; I'm just saying as of now he isn't. -R. fiend 04:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * He may not have broken any records yet but for the time being he's a notable player and it looks like he'll surpass the 15-game mark many people have mentioned as being the threshold allowing him an article. Once again, according to your logic many notable people should be ignored, a logic I frankly find to be ignorant at best. Think of it this way; if he does manage to win $1,000,000 in non-tournament winnings he'll still probably become a 'cause celeb' and yet still be about a third from Jennings' total winnings. Because the new records are so insurmountable, I think we shouldn't be so hung up on them.
 * Nowhere did I say he needed to hold a record to be notable enough for an article, I merely said a record would likely justify one. My main point is that the Walsh comparisons were flawed because Walsh was both a first and a holder of three records (and even his notability is somewhat questionable in my book); Madden doesn't fit either of those criteria. Maybe he will soon warrant an article, but I don't think he has yet, and he certainly didn't when this article was written. -R. fiend 00:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * To tell you the truth I've been kinda waivering between "keep" and "delete" myself, but I think we can give Madden the benefit of the doubt and keep it for now. I don't think it will be too much longer for him to gain noteriety (he's only $200,000 away from half a million; that may seem like quite a bit but it took him only, what, two weeks to get $200,000?), and if he falls short we can always delete later. Or whatever the Wikiministrators decide.
 * Keep. Why don't we just give this situation the benefit of the doubt?  After all, it would be much easier to decide to delete the article if he loses on tomorrow's episode, for example.  Why jump on it now if the possibility exists that he may become noteworthy later on? In fact, David only has to win once more to tie the previously-held record of wins prior to Ken Jennings which was Tom Walsh who was the first contestant to win more than 5 games when the 5-game rule was eliminated.  asert 04:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Because the season ends next week, and won't start up again until September.  ral  315  13:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Now, the number of wins stands at seven. That ties the record of Tom Walsh, so it is noteworthy. asert 01:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing here really. If he actaully approaches anything like Ken then we can create an article on him. This doesn't say anything anyway. Alex uses the K-word once in a haphazard remark and everyone thinks this guy's on the way to win 70 more games. I think a good test will be to see when and if he's mentioned outside of the show (and internet forums on the show). After Ken won about 12 games or so I think it was, Letterman started talking about him, as did others. Doesn't seem to be happening with Dave yet. All this "chronicling the next Ken" was all over wikipedia the moment he lost, and nothing panned out there. Patience. -R. fiend 06:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Isn't one episode away from equalling Ken's winning streak actually approaching him? - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that is 68 games away. -R. fiend 15:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable contestant. JamesBurns 08:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no match for Ian Lygo on that king of quiz shows 100% -- the wub  "?/!"  12:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Lygo: £7,500 --- Madden: $217,100 Jordan Elder 00:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would support him receiving an article after about 15 or 20 wins.  However, he's only won 6 games (to put in perspective, nearly a hundred contestants won 5 games and then were forced to retire before the rule change).  Besides, his 15th win wouldn't air until September.  ral  315  13:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - and yawn... A curate's egg 15:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: A contestant. Ken is in because he was a cause celeb.  There is no indication whatever of this fellow being referred to in the general media, that he is a cultural signifier.  He's just a person doing well on a show.  There have been legions of such.  I wouldn't want an article on him no matter how many wins unless he were a subject requiring explanation to an educated reader of the future.  We are not the high game counter of TV shows. Geogre 15:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per R. fiend and Geogre. Dcarrano 16:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Qualified delete, perhaps include the info in a brief elab on a List of notable Jeopardy! contestants. knoodelhed 20:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP because seven days is a rare occurrence on Jeopardy, and it is noteworthy. If he lasts longer than Tom Walsh (and that would be one more game), then definitely keep it.  Jordan Elder 17:29, July 13 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - if Tom Walsh gets an article, so does this guy. Radagast 02:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I've added somewhat to the article's breadth with some biographical details. Radagast 01:52, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Jordan Elder & Radagast. —Markaci 2005-07-14 T 02:51:09 Z
 * Delete there is notthing noable about this contestant beyond his time on the show. --nixie 04:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Tom Walsh probably shouldn't have an article either. I guess he does only because he was the first player ever to appear on a 6th show, which had basically nothing to do with him, but everything to do with a change in the rules and good timing. (Well, not nothing; he had to win a bunch of games, which isn't trivial, but not exactly encyclopedic). He also held several Jeopardy records. Madden is only 70 games and about 3 million dollars away from holding one himself. -R. fiend 04:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, redirect to the game show. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP! Have you guys ever even seen David on Jeopardy? Won't it ever pass your [thick] skulls that eight consecutive days is a rare occurrence on Jeopardy? In fact, this is the third time it's happened, with Tom Walsh and Ken Jennings before him.  He might even be the next Ken Jennings, but he already is the next Tom Walsh!  He is notable!  Besides, I checked the deletion policy and this article can stay, according to it.  Why delete it? Jordan Elder 21:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is user's 11th edit (actually his 11th through 23rd edits are all this comment). -R. fiend 16:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Rare" is not "encyclopedic". I could do all sorts of rare things. 8 appearances on Jeopardy will not be so rare much longer as people are no longer cut off at 5 games. In fact, the 5 games limit had only been removed a short while before someone exceeded it by 15 times. As I said, Tom Walsh held 3 records, Dave is nowhere near even one. When he gets his record, he'll get his page. In fact, I'd like to make a Game show records page as place to cover these contestant stubs (like Walsh) as well as some of the info on Ken's page about records he's held. The only problem is that other than Jeopardy and Millionaire and a few others I'm not entirely sure where to find such information. And to cover all, or most, game shows it would be quite a substantial endeavor. If anyone else likes this idea let me know and maybe we can work on it. The best I can see Madden getting is a runner up for most Jeopardy (regular season) appearances if he gets that far. -R. fiend 21:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Last summer, when Ken Jennings was at the peak of his popularity (middle of last July), he had over 23,000 hits on Google (for ' "Ken Jennings" Jeopardy ') and 914 Google News hits. ' "David Madden" Jeopardy' has 118 hits on Google, and 0 Google News hits. Ken Jennings has an article because he transcended his genre. Now people are going "9 games? Who cares!" Tom Walsh has an article because at least a modicum of normal people cared about his 7 wins. Dave Madden is still not notable in the context of his newsworthyness, meaning he really does not deserve an article in Wikipedia. --OntarioQuizzer 09:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: And it's like any person can get 9 games, right? Jordan Elder 19:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP: 9 games is an impressive streak on Jeopardy, and whether or not he has Google news results (he has one now) has little to do with noteworthiness. If you took Google results into account, you'd be trying to delete Ian Lygo's page.  He has 122 web results and 0 news items.  Can't you at least give some respect for David?  He's probably making more money than any of you.
 * Note: This is the 3rd Keep vote from this user (Jordan Elder) in this discussion.. --OntarioQuizzer 14:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. He is definitely now in my view worthy of the article (the 'keeping him in light of Tom Walsh's article' argument seems more than valid also). --DanielNuyu 07:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Madden is currently notable only to Jeopardy viewers, but I think this vfd is premature. Why don't we wait and see how long he makes it? If he's eliminated soon and thereby becomes nonnotable, we can always delete the article. If he wins a lot and becomes noteworthy, we won't have to come back and recreate a deleted article. As it is, his chances could go either way. I would suggest waiting until we can be sure. Binadot 03:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The show's 21st season ends on Friday and goes on hiatus until September -- should we be waiting around for 6 weeks for a streak to go over the edge of notability? --OntarioQuizzer 11:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a keeper. Dan100 (Talk) 12:52, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Barely notable in the realm of Jeopardy! translates into not notable for encyclopedic consumption. The arguement that he has performed a "rare" feat is also misleading because Jeopardy! has only recently implmented the format that allows a champion to remain more than five days and much of that period was dominated by a single individual. There is not enough data to determine how rare this feet truly is.  Indrian 15:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly we need to be somewhat cautious about namespace pollution, but we're not EB, neither. --Baylink 00:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete.Mwl 01:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- just in case my nomination doesn't count. --OntarioQuizzer 02:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If consensus is judged to be Keep, a disambig should be created for David (considering there are two other David Maddens referenced in other areas of the project. --OntarioQuizzer 12:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. What's the big deal? Isn't this wikipedia thingy supposed to have _everything_ in it? David's a geek who is doing right by himself, and deserves any minor fame he achieves. Besides, he keeps winning and will probably finish the season, and you'll have no choice anyway. Ted from Ontario. 20 July 2005.
 * Comment: What Wikipedia Is Not -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement. David's notoriety is the subject of the discussion. --OntarioQuizzer 12:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Derktar 05:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC).
 * Comment: Is this user related to Jordan? I really hope he hasn't started meatpuppeting. --OntarioQuizzer 10:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No I am not related to Jordan, we are both inclusionists though and as inclusionists we are working to keep articles, see:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians/Members and Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians -- Derktar 19:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the clarification -- I noted both of your last names being Elder and figured I should ask. --OntarioQuizzer 02:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Meatpuppeting? Jordan Elder 02:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and re-evaluate in a month -- Right now he seems to be somewhat notable enough for mention, this may not turn out to be lasting, it seems hard to say. --Mysidia 02:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can't say I'm opposed to the idea, but I just want to point out that Jeopardy! goes on its annual 6 week summer hiatus after tomorrow's episode. Meaning that he'll be at about this level until early September. --OntarioQuizzer 03:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think this debate should have ended by now. He has won 14 in a row which is double that of Tom Walsh. If he is not worthy, then Walsh certainly is not as well. I would say the standard should probably be 10 in a row. As a long time Jeopardy fan my guess is that only 1-2 people per season of Jeopardy will accomplish that feat.
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.