Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! in popular culture (3rd 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 delete. Buck  ets  ofg 02:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardy! in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The trend with "in popular culture" topics, wittily captured by this former embedded list, is over the top and is now heading downhill.

See Articles for deletion/Smilodon in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture as well as several others just today. Punkmorten 23:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep and moratorium on the AfD nomination of this article. Enough is enough. Improve the article, cull it, source it, etc., but this article has survived AfDs in the past for good reason: at least some of the information meets the notability test and the main article is already too large. Jeopardy! topics on Wikipedia comprise a small family of articles tidily held together by a footer template banner, as so many other large topics in the encyclopedia. Robert K S 23:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, you know... Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What can change is the proportion of Wikipedians involved in the previous AfDs who don't care to ring in again... and again... and again. AfDing an obviously important featured article enough times will, statistically speaking, guarantee its eventual deletion. Robert K S 01:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No valid keep argument has ever been presented. The previous closing admins were in error to close as anything but delete. Jay32183 02:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the valid arguments--significantly, the one given in italics above--have never been challenged. Robert K S 02:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid argument to keep because the delete argument has nothing to do with notability. The article is an indiscriminate list of loosely related terms, a clear violation of WP:NOT. There is no way to fix that problem so keep is not an option. Putting the information into another article would create too great a burden, so merge is not an option. Therefore, delete is the only option, and not only has there yet to be a valid argument against that, one cannot be made. Jay32183 03:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above is a mischaracterization of the article (it is not a "collection of loosely related terms") that would be easily remedied by reading its lead. We are in agreement that merge is not a desirable option, which is why the article should be kept, and legitimately per not paper and ss.  Once this article is gone, the material will accumulate in the main article again.  I trust that everyone who here voted delete will spend as much time keeping the main article clean as those who have voted keep. Robert K S 16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So now you're argument for keeping is better here than there. The fact that this is a list of things that are unrelated to each other except that they mention Jeopardy! is the very definition of collection of loosely related terms. Nothing, except deletion, can solve that problem. It should have been deleted from the main article instead of being split off on its own. We don't make garbage collection articles so that we don't have to pay attention to our real articles. Jay32183 22:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a page completely devoted to trivia. When the main article gets too long this stuff is just supposed to be removed, not given its own article. This isn't a notability issue. Jay32183 00:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What is keep, Alex? Unlike the recent spate of "List of..." and "...in popular culture" articles we've seen, this one seems to have substance and notability.--Ispy1981 01:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 *  delete with haste. 'it got mentioned' isn't the same as 'notable' Kripto 01:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The role of the show in popular culture is definitely important, but each minor instance is not. A general section in the main article summarizing the main impact is all that is needed. It should also be noted that Robert K S canvassed the people that left keep votes in the last two AfDs. TTN 02:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As AfDs aren't polls, the important thing here is that arguments be addressed, which isn't happening with delete responders, like the one below, which contradictorily asserts notability of some of the information in the nominated article. If any of the information is deemed notable, the article should stand.  Suggestions for pruning is not reason for deletion. Robert K S 02:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I think most of these can be summarized as "showing a Jeopardy clip", "parodying the Jeopardy format", and "phrasing a question in the form of an answer", which basically reduces this page to 3 sentences. A few are notable (Airplane 2, Weird Al, and the Cheers episode), but most of the rest can be dropped using more predominate ones as examples (and of course being vigilant about people adding every example under the sun)  Doing this can delete this page, and move the others to within the main Jeopardy article without hurting it's length to much. --Masem 02:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A: It's what should be done to this article and all other "Pop culture" articles, as all they do is list vague mentions.
 * Q: What is delete?
 * A: That is correct. Pick again, TenPoundHammer. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I was inclined to say keep. But. This article is grossly undersourced. And I think it's pretty useless. Reintegrate it back into the J! article. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because concerns one of the most noteworthy game shows in television history. Plus, if it already passed two of these things, maybe that should be a clue that a lot of people worked hard and want the article to stay.  Kind of excessive to keep trying to kill the article.  --24.154.173.243 04:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How hard people worked is meaningless. Jay32183 04:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does this really deserve its own article?  I don't think so.  While Jeopardy has contributed quite a bit to popular culture without a doubt, it doesn't seem like the sort of subject that has the legs to support a whole article's worth of information without degenerating into a big list of stuff. Maikeru 04:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A: This is what happens to Wikipedia articles that fail WP:NOT
 * Q: What is Delete? That's correct, pick again! Rackabello 06:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Care to explain which violation of WP:NOT, even though I think I know what you're referring to? And, please, no more Jeopardy! jokes for deletion. Once is humorous. Twice is insulting. Tinlinkin 06:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT; cultural significance can be better included at the main Jeopardy page. And Tinlinkin - don't tell editors how they may or may not express their vote. It is hardly insulting. Eusebeus 12:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The article used to be much worse off than it is now. I thought my standards as I set in the previous nomination were strong enough to determine notability and define what should be included. Apparently they are not, even as nobody raised objections or clarification then. It's up to other editors to define a stricter standard and implement it. Most "in popular culture" articles are inevitably going to be lists of some sort, because they have the nature of pointing out examples. If referencing and lack of independent commentary on the subject is the problem, in order to strictly satisfy verifiability, that is a valid problem to be corrected. After that's done, that may be a stronger reason to keep. But I disclose that I am not going to be the person to do that. If we continue with the current pattern of "in popular culture" articles on AfD, almost everything in Category:In popular culture and its subcategories will eventually be nominated at some point. I do not wish to partake in such debates until consensus is shown: when either WP:NOT is expanded to explicitly include such articles, or "In popular culture" articles is adopted as a content guideline. Tinlinkin 06:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Overlistification proposal. Bulldog123 15:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Waayyyy too much information in this (17K bytes) article, probably was more fun to write than it is to read. The references to individual TV episodes do not have to be plot summaries.  Yes, I remember the Cheers episode with Cliff Clavin, but if I didn't, I don't need to have it described. Mandsford 17:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup. There's too much non-notable info spread out among the notable. Kolindigo 07:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOT and WP:SS. Matthew 12:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As usual, you either deliberately misrepresent NOT#PAPER and WP:SS or you still truly don't understand what they mean. They are not free passes to keep everything. Articles must still comply with relevant policies and guidelines, and that is true whether Wikipedia is encoded in electrons, printed on paper or carved on rocks on the Moon. WP:SS is a guideline. It is not a policy. If an article fails an actual policy then WP:SS means bugger all. Given the number of times this has been pointed out to you and given the nimber of times you continue to make the fallacious argument, I find it hard to assume that you are making the argument in good faith as opposed to a desire to be obstructionist. Otto4711 02:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. No reliable sources. None of the popular culture references have anything to prove their notability for being mentioned in an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if wiki isn't paper, it is not a place for an indiscriminate collection of information. Seraphim Whipp 14:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & ample precedent; unlike the few that we've kept, there seems to be no WP:RS to show that the adoption of Jeopardy! into popular culture is notable - the mere lists of cross references doesn't suffice. One could make a list 100 times longer at The word "the" in popular culture by citing any marginally notable thing that used the word "the" from the obvious The The, The Who, The Beatles, to As the World Turns, and every time some routine on some show uses the word "the" - it doesn't mean that there is sufficient notability for such an article. Carlossuarez46 22:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as a directory of loosely associated topics. The game show does not gain notability for having been referenced in another TV show and the other shows don't become more notable for mentioning the game. The references to the game show tell us nothing about the game show, the source of the reference or the real world. Otto4711 02:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 14:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. Just about none of these entries, except for Celebrity Jeopardy! (Saturday Night Live), are made known as a result of Jeopardy! being mentioned.  This is clearly a case of indiscriminate trivia that has been synthesized by editors to create a muddled topic.  Additionally, there is precedent for these kinds of popular culture articles that are mainly trivial listings of an entity's passing mention in the media. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and current trend. It's a list of unencyclopedic and indiscriminate trivia. María ( críticame ) 18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a giant glorified list of trivia. Per nom, and also, it should be pointed out that this was deleted the first time around. Dannycali 19:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable content, makes sense as a topic. Everyking 00:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You know what? Merge the really important stuff back into the main article and delete. Clearly the mob has won -- and my time just isn't worth it on Wikipedia anymore. Andy Saunders 15:41, 4 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.