Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Fitzgerald

Katie Fitzgerald
 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was RESULT: Keep - 4 (also one unsigned, not counted); Merge - 3; Delete - 20; Unclassified -2. Outcome: DELETE. Noel (talk) 19:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to tellyou, the Detroit Free Press (link on Ken Jennings page regarding early airing in GA) reports about someone becoming the Jeopardy! champ for a few days next week. The person mentioned is NOT Katie Fitzgerald, although I think this article should be kept until her last day as the champion. Or, maybe an article should be started about the (as in any) current Jeopardy! champ if he/she runs for more than one day. And, her real name is Kathleen. --Super-Magician 19:28, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight, you want us to start a page on every Jeopardy champ the minute they win a single lousy episode, just to delete it as soon as they lose? Since when is wikipedia an entertainment tabloid? Ken lost; get over it. I know there are plenty of people who spent all their time documenting everything Ken ever did on the show, but those people have got to get new hobbies now. We have to stop writing articles on everyone someone has a hunch could be a notable person someday. Wait until it happens, don't jump the gun. -R. fiend 19:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. However, what I meant was if the champion is notable, unique, and/or has a streak of over five or so days.  But now, since she lost after two days, it should be deleted.  Nancy, though, will still be known as the Jeopardy! contestant who beat Ken Jennings... --Super-Magician 01:54, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Katie Fitzgerald Section 1.2
Jeopardy contestant who beat the person who beat Ken Jennings. Hate to be a spoiler but I know for a fact she doesn't rack up alot of wins. Even Nancy Zerg, who beat Ken, should just be mentioned on the Ken article; without him she's just another contestant. Was listed for speedy but doesn't qualify. Certainly deletable though. -R. fiend 03:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Way to ruin the suspense. ;) I'd like to see this kept but if it doesn't actually come to anything then I guess it's not worth it. -Litefantastic 12:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete. Is not notable enough for encyclopaedia article.   &rarr;I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo&larr;   (talk)  03:40, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
 * Delete: Absolutely not notable, although she is kind of cute. Someone is a little too taken with Jeopardy!, I think.  Geogre 04:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Potential for notability != notability. (Well, at least nobody started a table summarizing all her appearances.) Aerion 04:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Give them a day or two. -R. fiend 05:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * For the moment this article is speculative. Perhaps we'll be seeing a noteworthy writeup about her in the future but for now she's barely even a footnote in the Ken Jennings article.  &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 05:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think Nancy Zerg deserves her own article, much less this lady. Delete. [[User:Mo0|Mo0 [ talk ] ]] 06:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: This page might be a useful starting point for an article about Katie Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald, like Jennings, may end up having a remarkable run on Jeopardy.
 * -Most importantly, immediate deletion of this article discourages contribution. I don't know why speculating on a win should be different from speculating on a loss. This article may always be removed later.
 * -The article on Ken Jennings was created following the broadcast of his [eighteenth win]. It would have been useful and more accurate to have had early information on Jennings before his winning streak extended that far, rather than digging up secondhand information later on the net.
 * -Where is the information source on future Jeopardy broadcasts? If it is a site, it should be posted here to prove that she does not maintain a streak. That link, when visible, would also deter further creation of this type of article.Raazer 07:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: 1. "Might" be notable in the future is not "notable." If she hits a long streak, then write the article.  2. The Ken Jennings article got started when he broke the existing record for performances and became an unique contestant (unique is the vital word).  3. Discouraging bad articles is neither here nor there.  Wikipedia is not desperate for content anymore.  Although no one wants to discourage a contributor, we should not violate our mission or our standards to avoid possibly offending someone.  This is not Everything2.com.  4. The "all knowledge" thing is a case of silly misreading of the goals of the project.  It is an online encyclopedia and then, as a dependent phrase, that will strive to contain (i.e. within "encyclopedia") all human knowledge.  N.b. that it's an encyclopedia first.  Encyclopedias limit themselves to logical presentation and to only discussing items that are useful and notable.  There are more facts than things in the world, and no one would be insane enough to say "any fact goes in in any form."  Geogre 14:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Geogre. Once a contestant becomes notable, an article is warranted, but not when a contestant may become notable. It is not our place to speculate on such things. Virtually no information was lost from the Ken Jennings article despite that it was started 18 days into the run - the information was freely available all over the place, from tvgameshows.net, from the Jeopardy! message boards, from JEOParchive!, etc. The information is available in such detail that writing the article seventeen days earlier almost certainly wouldn't have had any benefit. Aerion 16:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge with Jeopardy? It seems like a logical place to mention noteworthy contestants... QuantumEleven 09:08, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notable Jeopardy competitors should appear on the Jeopardy article, not separately, and certainly not after one appearance. Average Earthman 10:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable, really was used - wikipedia is designed to keep all knowledge and such. So it is worth an article.
 * Keep. Is notable... Needs expansion and more information.  Kaite Fitzgerald might end up having a long run on Jeopardy in the future.  Let's wait and see for now.  --Randy 12:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: DCEdwards1966 14:47, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Put information on her at Talk:Ken Jennings or Talk:Jeopardy!, labeled something like "Hold for possible article." If she ties any record then the article can be created again from the Hold. Like User:Mo0 I also wonder if Nancy Zerg deserves an article. The point is, being a post-Ken Jeopardy! champion does not merit an automatic Wikipedia entry. Robert Happelberg 15:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: sorry folks but Post-Ken Jennings Jeopardy is not a whole new ballgame. The logic that the person who beat Ken must be better than Ken, and the person who beat her must be even better is just plain flawed. We're back where we were a year ago, in the world of regular run-of-the-mill Jeopardy contestants. I'm not sure what it will take to have a contest warrant an article now, but it will be a hell of a lot. Just winning 5 times or so won't do it. Many have done so in the past and have not gotten articles (and rightly so). Frank Spangenberg is one exception, because he broke a record and was very memorable, returning several times. Ken slipped up, and was beaten by a mortal. Yes, anyone might be notable in the future, but they don't get into an encyclopedia until they are. Keep tabs on contestants in your notebooks or whatever, post them here when they get to a dozen or more wins (which I guarantee you Fitzgerald does not do), and even then see if they get VfD'd or not. -R. fiend 16:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable enough at this time. Fire Star 16:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep articles on all Jeopardy! contestants who win at least one game. There is a level of fame associated with it, being watched by millions, and I suppose Jeopardy! fans care about it, even if I don't. We could chronicle all Jeopardy! episodes by winner biographies, and that would be a great resource. Everyking 17:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Jeopardy contestant. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 18:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lets wait and see.  [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 19:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't start to track Jeopardy! contestants stat-wise until they've won game #5. She's not notable enough as a person to the American public to warrant a Wikipedia article. There'll be enough important information lying around if she gets on a big streak. --OntarioQuizzer 19:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable.  We don't keep articles because the subject could potentially become notable.  -- WOT 21:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jeopardy! champions are in no way notable unless truly extraordinary like Ken Jennings.  I would say that this person will soon be forgotten except that would require being remembered in the first place. Indrian 05:14, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete average Jeopardy contestant. Name gets a lot of hits, but most are for college and high school athletes that don't seem to stand out enuf for an article. Niteowlneils 18:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * delete boring Mozzerati 19:21, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
 * Delete as completely non-notable. I don;t think any Jeapordy contestant deserves their own article solely for that, even the hyped guy with long streak. They all should just be a footnote (possibly with redirect page for the hyped guy) to the Jeopardy article unless they do something else notable in their life. Gameshow contestants are not encyclopedic in any way, shape or form on their own. DreamGuy 04:16, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Not even ones who go on to sell millions of albums, like Kelly Clarkson and Clay Aiken? I mean, they wouldn't have done what they did without a game show. Mike H 04:20, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, and delete Nancy Zerg while we're at it. Break a record, then we'll write about you. Gamaliel 04:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Can be mentioned in another article. Not independently notable.  Delete.  Rossami (talk) 17:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being a game show contestant is not at all notable. --Improv 03:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge. with the Ken Jennings article - she is not noteworthy enough to stand out on her own DemonKnight713
 * Delete. A champion is notable.  Someone who defeats a champion is notable.  But that does not make them, in and of itself, a champion, so the argument does not continue ad infinitum.  --L33tminion | (talk) 00:01, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Andy Warhol said everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame. If he was right, eventually Wikipedia will have 300 million articles just on Americans.  We better make it longer to get in the Wikipedia.    How about 1 week of fame? --BM 03:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with Ken Jennings. While I don't think she deserves her own page, I'd say it's enough of a trivia question to warrant a mention somewhere on Wikipedia (see my comment on VfD on Nancy Zerg). However, I also say stop here in terms of creating new pages for Jeopardy contestants, because I think generally after two players, it starts getting forgotten again. TheProject 04:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep she is the starting goalie for a championship winning team in a league that is beginning to get well known.Vincelord (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)