Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! broadcast history (2nd nomination)


 * 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) 03:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeopardy! broadcast history
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Far too much WP:IINFO an repition of information already part of the Jeopardy! article. Main article already contains information about hosts, announcers, taping locations and episode status in Jeopardy! and Jeopardy!.

WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and the set and episode status sections can be reorganized to include the small amount of encyclopedic information from this article that is not already included in the parent article.

Article has been tagged with refimprove for 1.5 years, and the "Personnel", "Syndication, 1974-1975" and "NBC, 1978–1979" sections are entirely unsourced.

WP:NOTINHERITED, and there is little notability related to the broadcast history of any television program that would warrant an entirely separate article from the parent article.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not TV Guide, and the exact timeslot and so on of even very notable shows isn't encyclopedic. Most of this information is covered in more concise and better form in the main Jeopardy! article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom. The information that can be sourced is already in the parent article; the rest is irrelevant, unverifiable or both. Wikipedia still is not TV Guide. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is clearly not correct, as an examination of the References section easily shows. Robert K S (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or substantially trim and merge: The only content that isn't really duplicative of the parent article is the discussion of NBC's early-to-mid-1970's daytime programming strategy and the Fleming version's resulting moves around the schedule and eventual cancellation. While it's (mostly) sourced, I'm not sure it's all that relevant more than 35 years after the fact, and not as a sub of an article whose primary focus is the current version. JTRH (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nuke the original research like "Many other affiliates also attempted this experiment, and Jeopardy! continues to air in the 7:00-8:00 PM period across the country," "Starting in 1999, just after Jep!'s cancellation, Jeopardy! began a 'Back-to-School Week', which has easier clues and more accessible material for the younger contestants, but is otherwise identical to the adult version," and "Despite losing the lunchtime demographic which had been its base, Jeopardy! unexpectedly beat the CBS version of The $10,000 Pyramid in ratings, which was then canceled by CBS and purchased by ABC," and then merge the remaining content back into the main article (since there are some sections that are well-sourced from watching an episode of the show, especially the 1978-79 version). RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  16:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per the concerns by TenPoundHammer and Sottolacqua. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep : if there are redundancies, I'd remove these from the main article and point to this article, which is decently sourced and allows to get into the detail without clogging the main article. WP:NOTTVGUIDE does not apply IMHO: it's not a TV guide but rather an exposition of the history of the show. WP:NOTINHERITED also seems not proper to invoke, given that this article is meant as a split for size and organization concerns. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge per Cyclopia. Those dismissing this as being somehow like TV Guide content don't seem to have even read the article; it isn't a viewing guide, but instead states timeslots only in the context of behind-the-scenes network programming decisions, which is rather significant information for the history of a show, particularly when a time slot is purported to seal its cancellation or success.  I also agree with Cyclopia's criticism of the "not inherited" argument: this is a subtopic split off from the main article, so the only question is whether there is sufficient encyclopedic information to merit the split off or if the main article can incorporate it.  "The history of Jeopardy! does not inherit notability from Jeopardy!" is simply an incoherent and nonsensical way of analyzing whether a separate article on that subtopic is appropriate.  postdlf (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge per the above two, especially Postdif. "There is little notability related to the broadcast history of any television program"? Shows live and die by their timeslots, and a show's success or failure can usually be traced to a particular timeslot and its competition there. Jeopardy! (especially the original NBC run) is an example of how it thrived after being moved to one slot and died a slow, painful death after being moved to another – and yes, the move to 1:30 PM (a stiff-competition slot at the time) was because Lin Bolen wanted to rid NBC of games hosted by middle-aged men on technologically-obsolete sets. Daniel Benfield (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment—The notation about the time slot and Bolen's actions do not inflate the notability of the show's broadcast history to the level of warranting an entirely separate article from the parent article. This can easily be summarized in a few sentences and included in Jeopardy!.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Essentially, this is about the Art Fleming hosted version of Jeopardy! that people 40 and over recall, while the Jeopardy! article is almost entirely about the Alex Trebek hosted version that has run for more than 25 years. I always love nominations based on "way too much information". Some of us simply call that "information", but if we must be protected from too much info, then our guardians can use the edit button.  Mandsford 00:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keepwell referenced and little overlap with main article. A TV Guide? Huh? What is that about?This is nothing like a TV Guide, and we do have tv guides. We have a whole series of charts for what was in what timeslot for each year. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, yet another in a long line of Sottolacqua deletion nominations. Despite all the work that's gone into this article, he won't rest until all sorts of valuable sourced information is culled from the encyclopedia.  It's tiring to keep responding to these nominations.  I could write pages on why all the nomination arguments are bunk, but frankly, I'm exhausted by this process.  It really shouldn't be this much of an uphill battle to keep content on the encyclopedia.  My sense is that deletionists won't rest until Wikipedia is reduced to nothing. Robert K S (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment and suggestion: I've already voted to delete or merge, but I wonder: Would a separate article on the Fleming versions be more noteworthy than a separate article on broadcast history? JTRH (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment—If the Flemming and Trebek-hosted versions were vastly different in gameplay like The Price Is Right (1956 U.S. game show) and The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) are, then I would say "yes." However, being that there are a very small number of differences (i.e., increases in clue values over time, the 1978 "Super Jeopardy" bonus game and a separate special tournament played for points instead of dollars), these versions are fairly identical in gameplay. I don't feel a separate article is needed.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeopardy! has been a highly-rated and popular program for 26 years in its current run. Yet viewers are often surprised to learn that the 26-season Trebek version is not the original Jeopardy!  Why didn't the original persist?  This is a complicated question that cannot be answered in a small section of a larger article on the subject.  The Fleming version was a highly-rated staple of daytime TV for over a decade.  When it was canceled, it was still strong in the ratings, the network was contractually obligated to keep airing it, and the host and creator both desired the show to keep airing.  Given all of this, why was it canceled?  This is a subject worthy of coverage on this encyclopedia.  All the best, Robert K S (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The An entirely separate article is unneeded. "Viewers are often surprised" is opinion and takes liberty in assuming that you know what other people know/don't know. Your response, "The Fleming version was a highly-rated staple of daytime TV for over a decade. When it was canceled, it was still strong in the ratings, the network was contractually obligated to keep airing it, and the host and creator both desired the show to keep airing." sums up what should be added to either a Broadcast history section or Episode status section in the Jeopardy! article.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ??? This is a proper place for expression of opinions. I don't need to "take liberties" with what others know.  I've had thousands of conversations about Jeopardy! over the years.  I'm in a room with six other people right now--intelligent, well read people, law students--and took a quick poll.  Nobody else in the room with me realized there had been a host of Jeopardy! before Alex Trebek.  Misinterpreting the intent of my question, one of them said to me, "If you want to know, Wikipedia it."  I explained that certain persons on Wikipedia thought that such information should be removed from the encyclopedia.  This dumbfounded my colleagues.  "Isn't Wikipedia the place you go when you want to know about something?" one of them asked.  "Why would anyone want to delete this information?"  I explained that certain people believed that Wikipedia should only be about a certain small subset of information.  This was perplexing to my colleagues.  They reasoned that the Internet was a big place and there should be room on Wikipedia for information such as this.  I could only shrug in agreement.  Let's end this destruction. Robert K S (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nom lists three rationales for deletion.  However, this article doesn't fit any of the categories of WP:IINFO, is not at all "TV Guide", and is well-sourced, so it's not resting on "inherited" notability.  So all three rationales fall apart.  And, as noted, User Sottolacqua has an easily verified history of borderline bad faith AfDs on this topic.  271828182 (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well sourced article about a broadcasting institution. I was voting "Delete" on the individual player bios a while back, but this one seems well within WP parameters... Carrite (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2011 (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.