Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Timanus


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Eddie Timanus

 * – ( 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."

Being a blind game show contestant is not something that is notable. He didn't set a trend of other blind contestants appearing on Jeopardy! or any other game shows, he's not the biggest winner ever, he's not foo, etc. His appearance has had no notable impact to the show, television, culture, etc. whatsoever. There are not articles for hearing impaired/deaf contestants who have appeared on Wheel of Fortune, handicapped/wheelchair-using contestants who have appeared on Price is Right, etc. These are not notable criteria.

Subject authored articles that appeared in USA Today, however wp:author does not apply as the subject is not regarded as an important figure; is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, etc.

Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, plainly notable as a blind contestant with an exceptional achievement and a great deal of press and repeated recollection through the years. Additionally, 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) 15:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Status as blind contestant (combined with articles in NY Times and USA Today) put this page in a different class than the run of the mill "This guy won a bunch of money on a game show" pages. —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.


 * Keep as I suggested in the previous discussion. Articles from Washington Post about his job as a basketball statkeeper and about his Jeopardy! appearance demonstrate significant coverage that creates a presumption of notability.  Whether this proved to be significant in the course of history is irrelevant.  The sine qua non of notability is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which the sources given clearly demonstrate.  WP:BLP1E doesn't apply for the reason I stated above (he's also noted in Jackman as a statkeeper and USA Today sports correspondent); even if it were, this would be an argument for move to Eddie Timanus's Jeopardy! appearance (an article about the event, cf. Steve Bartman incident) or merge to List of Jeopardy! champions (where notability is presumed as a criterion for inclusion.  RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  19:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Primary and secondary sources are available for the act, and the information is demonstratably useful, so is good encyclopedic knowledge. Worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 22:04, 11 october 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep BLP1E is not an issue. Timanus was in the news for his statskeeping work years before he was on Jeopardy. It doesn't matter if he failed to "set a trend" for blind contestants; all the GNG asks is that he received the coverage. (I would actually argue that the lack of other blind contestants makes Timanus' accomplishments more impressive. But I've told you that before.) Zagal e jo^^^ 05:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 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) 20:38, 12 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.