Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! in popular culture


 * 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 Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardy! in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Collection of random trivia about Jeopardy!. The Jeopardy! article has an abbreviated "popular culture" section; this was probably forked out to allow room for all the cruft we now see here. "In popular culture" articles are not a good idea; see also WP:TRIV and WP:TRIVIA. The list is very indiscriminate and unsourced (except for one item). Delete. Mango juice talk 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete fan cruft thrown in a bag, shaken up, and dumped out on the floor. --Selket Talk 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:NOT -- J  Morgan (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "In popular culture" is another way to try to spin off trivia sections, which are usually pretty suspect. Booshakla 00:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge anything notable with the main article. I disagree with the statement made by the nominator regarding "in popular culture" articles as there are topics that are viable under this format. This shouldn't be used as criteria for deletion unless Wikipedia institutes a "No 'In Popular Culture' Articles" policy. The nominator is welcome to propose such a ban through the proper channels, of course. 23skidoo 06:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per 23skidoo. Jeopardy is such a big and popular game show that some mentionings of its influence in other programs and literature is warranted although maybe not to the extent we have here. It is better to preserve the history beneath a redirect so that people can work on it, than to delete everything. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whatever the result, it should absolutely NOT be merge. First of all, no one has volunteered to work on a merge, and the amount of work involved is enormous: far too much for the closing admin. No one has even given guidelines as to what should be merged vs. thrown out.  Second, trivia detracts from serious articles.  It's important to recognize that, because the merge will likely leave the main article worse, and that article is more important to preserve than the trivia.  Third, the Jeopardy article already has an abbreviated "in popular culture" section which is selective, including only three items; in a sense, the important stuff has already been merged.  Mango juice talk 14:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Obviously cannot be merged, perhaps cut down a bit. Above is an essay, not a policy.  Pop culture articles can be useful to some, but appearantly not you.  Have you been nominating other pop culture articles for AFD, too?  If it is to be deleted, then I may make a 'subpage article,' which I believe are allowed.  Reywas92 Talk 15:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If by a subpage, you mean something like Jeopardy!/Trivia, then, no, that kind of page is no longer used. Mango juice talk 16:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, like User:Xyz/Jeopardy Pop culture. I have seen other users have subpages not relating to the user, but more article-like.  This may not be liked, but legal.  Simply, I am Keep.  Reywas92 Talk 16:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. Yes, user subpages are okay, but article subpages aren't.  And BTW, although there is an essay in my argument, WP:NOT is a policy, and WP:AVTRIV is an official guideline and part of the manual of style, and they both apply here.  Mango juice talk 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:AVTRIV and article length policy contradict each other. The material collected in this article is relevant to demonstrating the cultural impact of Jeopardy!, but was split off of the Jeopardy! article because that article would have been overwhelmed by it.  Additionally, some of the material on the page is not trivia in the sense that it is not just interesting but is also notable.  If this article is deleted, all the material would eventually return, but in the Jeopardy! article, added by new users who never saw the spun-off article.  I don't understand why we want to revert to that state of affairs again.  I would also point out that the Jeopardy! set evolution article has survived a deletion debate that was proposed under similar circumstances and for identical reasons. Robert K S 17:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please don't use the argument that the "set evolution" page is a reason to keep the article. I looked at the AFD for that, and it should have been a no consensus, not keep, and it should be removed too anyway.  Half the votes were "this is interesting" keep votes, while the other half were valid delete/merge votes.  As with that article, this should go too, pure garbage of interest to no one.  Booshakla 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Response. The article's interest to more people than "no one" is its raison d'être.  It's easy to call something "fancruft" or "an indiscriminate collection of information" and toss it away, but such responses ignore the reality of the contributions made to the article and its history.  Dozens of different users contributed to the article before it was forked, and dozens more contributed later.  While I cannot endorse the article on other merits (it is poorly sourced, not many other pages link to it, etc.), articles like this are what make Wikipedia so useful and interesting, and set Wikipedia apart from drier encyclopedias.  These sorts of lists are the neurons that send out dendrite feelers to so many other neurons.  In the future, we're going to appreciate articles that collect information such as this, not indiscriminately, but discriminately, and most interestingly.  Consider the following cycle.  A future user sees a photograph somewhere of Vicki Lawrence in a white wig on the Jeopardy! set and wonders, "Were characters from Mama's Family ever on Jeopardy!?"  The user goes to Wikipedia for the answer, but it is not there.  Having done research to determine that such a thing did indeed happen, the user adds the information to the Jeopardy! article.  Other users do the same, and the article bloats with useful and valid information.  A split is proposed and executed.  The split article is deemed in violation of Wikipedia policy and deleted.  A future user sees a photograph somewhere of Rosie Perez in street getup on the Jeopardy! set and wonders... What is the appropriate response on Wikipedia to end such vicious circles?  IMHO, it is to let such lists exist when they are appropriate and link to many other valid articles.  Robert K S 04:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The appropriate response is to remove that kind of irrelevant information. Yes, the information may pop up again and again, but it should be removed, again and again.  Giving it a safe haven like this article may have been a necessary if problematic step when Wikipedia was smaller; now, there are enough dedicated editors to keep this kind of stuff out of articles.  Mango juice talk 13:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an editor who does far more deleting of fluff than adding of new information, especially to the Jeopardy! article, I assert that you are incorrect on this point. Despite an HTML comment warning in the Jeopardy! article not to contribute additional references (which are encyclopedic inasmuch as they testify to the show's cultural pervasiveness)--a comment which I added--editors are constantly tempted to contribute (valid) cultural references to the article, bloating it.  I don't want to think about how much worse this problem will become when there is no forked article and no warning comment on the main page. Robert K S 17:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as trivia. The Jeopardy article already has a suitable popular culture section which would not be improved by any merger. -- Whpq 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, but clean up because in my opinion, it was a necessary article fork to prevent the Jeopardy article from becoming too too unwieldy. Yes, it does require some paring of the completely indiscriminate information, but were we not always instructed here on Wikipedia to create subpages of articles that were getting too big? Andy Saund e rs 13:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly the point. If this material is unwanted, it should be removed, not moved into an article that becomes an unpatrolled trash heap.  Mango juice talk 15:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the point I was making was that the topic is encyclopedic based on being spun off of the main Jeopardy! article, but that there is excess fluff that should be removed from the article. Andy Saund e rs 16:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mango, the material is wanted. If the main article wasn't already too big, it would live there, appropriately.  It's no more a "trivia" section than Battles of the American Civil War is the "fancruft" of the American Civil War article. Robert K S 17:21, 15 February 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.