Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! audition process


 * 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 no consensus. However, if sources are not provided, this article should be brought back to AFD. Neil  ╦  10:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardy! audition process

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A unencyclopedic article that is basically a guide and violates WP:NOT and WP:NOT. Is also borderline spam and just isn't suitable for this site. Biggspowd 22:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC) '''This is the 2nd AfD for this article. The result of the previous AfD was keep.'''


 * Delete Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information or a how-to guide. Also unencyclopediac. ( [ →]O - RLY?) 22:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, but maybe some of the content can be merged into the main Jeopardy! article. Useight 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, but merge into Jeopardy!. Fiskars007 23:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep; this would be perfect for the main article. However, the main article is too big. Therefore, it got split off into appropriate sections. Why not just have every article be 500KB long? Andy Saunders 00:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NOT. Some of the content may be merged (i.e. one or two sentences), but the main Jeopardy! article is quite bloated, so mergers be careful. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please read the previous AfD result.  (The article underwent significant revision during and after that AfD.)  This article at one point shared some characteristics with a HOWTO but that can no longer be said to be the case.  Robert K S 15:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC) From the other AfD:
 * " I think one of the things that makes Jeopardy! unique from other game shows is its audition process. Contestants can't appear on Jeopardy! unless they are able to demonstrate their knowledge. I believe surely there are articles and books written about the Jeopardy! audition process. If those sources can appear and are discussed in the nominated article, then I believe the subject can demonstrate notability." Tinlinkin 03:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "For a show as long-running and notable as Jeopardy!, the unique audition process is non-trivial and encyclopedic as well. Editors above have listed at least 6 sources. The article describes the process, and is not intrinsically a how-to guide." Pomte 09:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I should note that said editor, Robert K S is the primary editor of the said article. And this is a total how-to guide, and the whole "the main article is too long" thing is bunk.  This information is not suitable for an encyclopedia, on its own or in a section.  Biggspowd 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the article, but I did work to add sources and rewrite "Howto" aspects of the article, addressing the concerns of the last AfD. You're saying that work to improve an article implies CoI and disqualifies my vote, but even if that were so, it doesn't disqualify the arguments presented for the notability and verifiability of the article, which can be sourced. Robert K S 21:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said you created the article, but you do have most of the edits listed on the page. And there is a line in afd etiquette that states: "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article."  That's all I was following, and giving your user page and outsider interests in a jeopardy site, that is valid and needs to be considered to make a decision about the article.  That last afd should have been no consensus, I certainly didn't see any.  This page is pure fancruft.  It's also borderline spam/advertising, and violates many aspects of WP:NOT.  Is Jeopardy important for an encyclopedia, yes.  Is every single little thing about it important enough to have it's own article for an encyclopedia, absolutely not.  And just because an article survives an afd does not guarantee that it will survive other afds.  And this article does not have any real references on it, just a few things from internet message boards.  And since you're giving examples from the last afd, I will repost mine: "Strong Delete the argument "it was taking too much space in the main article" is not a real reason to delete it. it should just be a section in the main article, and pared down, this is an encyclopedia, not a place where every info bit can be, you're supposed to be an editor, meaning you edit things. Biggspowd 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)".  It's nice that you like Jeopardy, but we don't need an article on every aspect of it on here. Biggspowd 21:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I considered merging this article with the parent article, but that one is so unwieldy as it is, I don't see the benefit. As a standalone article, it's more than just a how-to, in its present state. It's an informative look at not just the current audition process, but the process of the Art Fleming-era Jeopardy as well.--Ispy1981 15:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because you think something is interesting does not mean it should be kept. Biggspowd 21:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct--notability verifiability are the thresholds for inclusion, and this article evidences both. Robert K S 21:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Robert K S's reasoning. Spicy 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT - An encyclopedia is not the place to learn on how to audition to a game show. Corpx 02:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Would also like to note that the whole article is pretty much WP:OR.  It shouldnt be cited to user contributed forums. Corpx
 * Despite the fact that said cited forum is part of the television show's official website, whose contributors include not only champions from the show, but also experts whose opinions on the show have been cited in the Wall Street Journal and NPR's "All Things Considered". Frankly, I believe it's a special case here. Andy Saunders 03:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How did you verify the identity of the posters there? Corpx 01:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I do not know if this belongs in an encyclopedia, would WikiHow be more appropriate? GoAirForce 21:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Too large for a Merge and too informative to be pared down, although merge would be better than delete.  Most people, myself included, have no idea how the weeding process for a show with contestants works; each show would have its own system.  For most shows, the process is not of much interest, but Jeopardy is a classic.  I think that most of the intellectual wannabes who edit Wikipedia, were they to "stoop" to going on a game show, would pick Jeopardy as opposed to "Wheel" or "Pyramid" and have probably wondered about this topic.  Mandsford 01:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep An article describing a process the reader my be interested in participating in is not necessarily a how-to article. If this article were "How to get on Jeopardy!" it would be a how-to article. I didn't notice anything how-to when I looked over the article. Atropos 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The article was previously nominated for deletion here. The result was keep. Atropos 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Ispy1981 and Mandsford. Iotha 01:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete WP:Note requires significant coverage. There are only two references in the article, which are to message boards which cannot be construed as reliable sources under WP:V. --Malcolmxl5 01:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an oversight. In the last AfD I mentioned 5 books that cover the process, and there are dozens of newpaper articles and television news stories that document the process thoroughly written every year.  I thought the sources had been added, but they haven't yet.  If the only objection to the article is its sourcing, that is easily addressed, and I will be adding sources in the next day. Robert K S 02:27, 25 July 2007 (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.