Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution (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   speedy deleted by Orangemike, CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeopardy! set evolution

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article contains an extraordinary level of intricate, non-encyclopedic detail. Additionally, the formatting within the article is inconsistent or improperly coded, especially where pictures are supposed to appear. Sottolacqua (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Pure trivia, unable to be sourced. Was already redirected twice and undone. Let's quit playing whack a mole with it, eh? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP!!!! Do you people even have a freaking life?!? This article contains very useful info, and you freaks deleted it on purpose! Wikipedia is seriously screwed up when they delete game show releated articles.--Tomballguy (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Chris
 * Besides, erasing the article again would be upsetting for several Jeopardy! fans as well. Please consider thinking about what Jeopardy! fans might react to if this article is deleted. Be well aware that you, the person who nominated the article for deletion is responsible for all information lost in the article if it is deleted/redirected again. Plus also, the Jeopardy! article is too long.--Tomballguy (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Chris
 * Dude, calm down. You're basically saying WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL. Do you have a real reason, or are you just going to insult anyone else who calls for deletion? "Be well aware that you, the person who nominated the article for deletion is responsible for all information lost in the article if it is deleted/redirected again." Yeah right. Nowhere does it say that. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Give the article another chance! All of us can contribute by finding more sources!--70.240.227.128 (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Chris


 * Delete per otters  Chzz  ►  23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable and well written. Too much information to go into the main article but not improper since the subject is notable as an important part of Americana.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And where would you suggest we get sources from? That's the main thrust. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 00:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Video documentation of the shows and news articles.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen a single news article on Jeopardy's set. Even the freaking Jeopardy book doesn't mention it in more than trivial terms. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 00:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If they don't exist then I concede the point, however, I am not aware of the millions of entertainment articles published through the years. Video documentation is just as good a source.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete That article is nothing more than a fansite, and the arguments here for keeping the article further solidify why the article should be deleted. Keeping it because "erasing the article again would be upsetting for several Jeopardy! fans" is not a valid reason. Wikipedia is not a fansite. The article is hardly notable and not well written. There are multiple errors in the coding that prevent pictures from showing up! The evolution of a game show set is not notable and is not remotely an important part of Americana. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete First off, let me thank the above user who said that we should "get a life". That was a supremely ironic remark. Anyway, I checked out the alleged sources of this article, and they are not what Wikipedia considers reliable. A collection of blogs, Jeopardy promotional materials, and other fansites are not appropriate sources for an encyclopedic article. This article is mostly original research seemingly based on having watched Jeopardy for several decades. It is not a proper subject for an article in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. While the information is exhaustively thorough, and some of it is fairly interesting trivia...in the end it is just that, trivia. Some of the information should be salvaged for the Jeopardy! article, and the rest simply isn't encyclopedic. While it is acknowledged that the show is well-liked among Americans, how the set has changed over the years seems to lack a historical context that would warrant such an article. There are plenty of places on the web where such information is welcomed, and it is good information, it just isn't encyclopedia information. And just a side note, I don't really feel that coding errors should be counted as why a page is or is not deleted, as these can be remedied by an astute editor. JogCon (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note Just for some history, here are the previous AfDs for this:
 * Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution
 * Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution (2nd nomination)
 * The first was closed as "keep" although it looks more like consensus was leaning towards merging, the second is quite long and closed as merge/redirect whatever was not original research and delete the rest. If this closes with a similar outcome, this should be salted or, if left as a redirtect, permanently fully protected from editing or we'll just be back here all over again in a few months... Beeblebrox (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So you believe it is more important to prevent AFDs than to discuss what is acceptable?--Lost Fugitive (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? No, I don't believe in wasting everyone's time. This is the third time this article's fate has been debated here. If consensus is to delete, it should not be re-created without proper sources, because it will just end up here again and will get debated again, and will get merged/deleted again, and what will have been accomplished by that? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus changes, and there has yet to have been a strong consensus established to delete.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Possible future protection is a fairly minor point, really, but anyway, I believe there is a very strong consensus that 'all articles must be based on verifiable, reliable sources so that Wikipedia does not become a collection of unsourced "observations" and other original research. As a matter of fact, the five pillars of Wikipedia, the core policy page of this entire project, states " Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. ". Beeblebrox (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But observations can be made from a primary source such as video. If it is descriptive then it is permissible under the original research principle.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD as repost of article previously deleted at AfD which has not been changed to address the reasons why the article was previously deleted. To take one example, in the previous AfD I expressed concern about the unsourced sentence in the article, "Instead of a 3-inch border surrounding 30 19" TV monitors, the new gameboard consisted of 30 25-inch TV screens encased in a half-inch frame." That sentence is still there and still unsourced. I don't know how anyone managed to measure the monitors and frame without doing original research; another participant in that AfD claimed he had measured the old monitors when his high school bought three of them, which is blatant original research (and doesn't explain how the old border, the new monitors, or the new frame were measured). Or to take another example, the original Jeopardy! board in 1964 is described as follows: "A Daily Double was indicated by a blue-and-yellow diagonal-stripe-patterned card between the money card and the clue. The categories above the clues were printed in cream color on cards with a somewhat darker shade of blue." Unfortunately, four paragraphs later, the article mentions that even though the show was broadcast in color from the start, no episodes from before 1972 are known to exist in color; the few remaining episodes from the show's first eight seasons exist only as black-and-white kinescopes. No source is provided to support the claims about the various shades of the Jeopardy! set from 1964 to 1972. In general, the article is barely sourced at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - as lacking sources from reliable sources, and not meeting notability. If actual sources writing about the evolution of the set can be found, I can be convinced to change my mind, but I've found none in my own searching. -- Whpq (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Metropolitan90's G4 suggestion and have tagged as such. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:57, 28 April 2009 (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.