Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! College Championship


 * 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) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeopardy! College Championship
AfDs related to this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Wikipedia is not a database of Jeopardy! contestants. Game show tournament is not notable to warrant a separate article, and college tournament structure and info is already included in List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events.

Entire list of contestants is completely unsourced and other tags are from Jeopardy! fansite not affiliated with production of the program. The official site and specific tournament section do not even list as much intricate detail about participants as here, merely showing first names. Likely unable to find any acceptable source detialing the participants in the tournaments due to lack of subject notability.

 Sottolacqua  (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Already covered at the List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events page. Extensive list is trivia at best. Dac04 (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above; clearly indiscriminate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; deletion rationale (that no source could ever be available for the information in this article) is inaccurate, speculative, and circular. The information in this article has been compiled as the show has aired.  In essence, its content, with regard to the particular names of the contestants, falls under the category of WP:FACTS, and each name may source to the episode of the show itself.  (As to the full names of the contestants and other information, this was available in press releases published by the show's distributors as each tournament prepared to air.)  The deletion counterargument that would seem to follow, then, would imply that once a television episode has aired, the information contained therein will have been forever lost to the stratosphere and could never be known or recovered.  This argument would seem to me to be antithetical to the meaning and purpose of Wikipedia as a venue to store, share, and categorize knowledge.  This is not an issue of original research, "unsourcedness" or unsourceability, as the nominator would suggest.  This is a basic issue of "do we make this information available in a well-organized way, or do we delete it".  One need only click on the "news" link in the deletion nomination, above, to see the wealth of sources from which information about the College Championship could be drawn.  Clearly, not all of these sources would need to be linked to or listed in the article for it to survive an AfD.  That would be the indiscriminate collection of information. Robert K S (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel what is at issue is more the value of the list of contestants on its own rather than its verifiability. The first part of the deletion rationale is that Wikipedia is not a database of Jeopardy! contestants.  Such a list seems to be WP:Overlistification to me. Dac04 (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The contestant names in this article are a far cry from anything going on in WP:Overlistification. This is not a "list of Europeans" or "list of African Americans".  It is not even a list, but a table which organizes by tournament advance status, with notations of winnings in excess of the guaranteed amounts.  I would say it is akin to, and should be found as valuable to the encyclopedic project as, team rosters of sports franchises, as can be found in numerous articles such as, e.g., 2010–11 Cleveland Cavaliers season, except that those are mere lists whereas this is an organizing table.  The remark above that characterizes the article as comprising "indiscriminate" information misapprehends the meaning of the word "indiscriminate".  The argument that we "don't need" this tabularly-organized information is merely deletionist dicta and is not in itself a rationale for deleting the topic as an article.  Regular notability standards should apply. Robert K S (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The notation that this article lacks sources outside of a fansite and are likely unable to be found is presented as additional assertion that this game show tournament is not notable outside of the parent article, nor is it not notable enough to warrant an individual article separate from List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the list. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed Us441(talk)(contribs) 21:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Agreed" above should not be viewed as an extra "delete" vote. The two remarks above are devoid of rationale.  The article subject is independently notable apart from its parent article, as clicking on the "news" link at the top confirms. Robert K S (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: I don't to see how one of the most popular and publicized (as evidenced by the wealth of news articles available) tournaments of the highest-rated quiz show doesn't meet notability standards. The rationale states that that Wikipedia is not a database for Jeopardy! contestants, but I don't see how this is different from, say, listing every person who's ever played a single game for the New England Patriots. HansTAR (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreed with HansTAR and Robert K S about the sports comparisons. In addition, the case of this article bears little difference from any other televised competition catalogued on Wikipedia. A few examples: "The Amazing Race," "Dancing With The Stars," "American Idol," "Survivor", et. al. All of these shows have individual pages for each of their seasons, complete with tables for the finishes of each contestant/team, and other information about how the competition played out. The examples I gave, I might add, are all of fairly long-running programs. "Jeopardy!" certainly fits the bill, as it has run continuously, nationwide, for nearly 27 years. The information given in this article is organized in one singular page, presented in an orderly fashion, and as Robert K S has noted, the "news" section shows many examples of this article's notability outside of its parent article. Wikipedia is indeed not a database of "Jeopardy!" contestants, but there is no reason that it should not be a database of notable aspects of "Jeopardy!," when the notability of said aspects can be readily proven. Musicman800 (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though it might be worth collapsing the various articles into one "Jeopardy tournaments" page. I do, however, agree that these articles need more sources, whther they are press releases, news articles, or the J! website itself. Aldaryx (talk) 09:18, 1 November 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.