Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest single day Jeopardy! winnings


 * 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. Courcelles 17:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

List of largest single day Jeopardy! winnings

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Note: Previously nominated at Articles for deletion/List of the largest single day Jeopardy! prizes and closed as no consensus on 19 August 2009.

List is of little or no academic value. WP:NOT argument applies, as this article is a clear example of listcruft. List is a duplication of the Official website listing of highest totals, and even uses the same $30,000 threshold. Only other source listed is a non-official, non-published fansite. Other list articles of "Highest X" or "Largest Y" are appropriately sourced, well-organized and do not contain nearly the amount of information thrown into this article.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Entirely trivial. WikiLubber (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, WP:IINFO unlikely to be reliably sourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - not only its trivial, this list is unsourced. It is just an indiscriminate list of information. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or possibly Delete Since this CAN be used in the Jeopardy! article, but if not, delete per nom on the account that it is trivial. Jeremy McClean (Talk) 21:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes. It's a copyright violation. ApprenticeFan  work 03:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Errr, not really. NW ( Talk ) 03:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a copyvio, perhaps, but still an unimaginative cut-and-paste of this, and no better than it was last time around. Someone must have had carpal after typing "Ken Jennings" that many times.  Ideally, what one would do is simply add that link to the Jeopardy! article with a sentence or two about anything on here that's particularly interesting (which will work out to about two or three sentences altogether).  Mandsford 14:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason this can't be its own list article. WP:IINFO most assuredly doers not apply, since it's a very specific list: really, please go read it. Objections listed above are causes for cleanup, rather than deletion.  Merging or trimming are editorial decisions, but this clearly doesn't meet any reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT: "3. Excessive listing of statistics." This entire article can easily be summed up with two sentences. "Roger Craig achieved the highest single-game winnings on September 14, 2010 with a final score of $77,000. Prior to 2001, when the clue values of the current syndicated version were doubled, the highest score was achieved by Jerome Vered who finished with a total of $34,000 on May 21, 1992." There is absolutely no reason to list 227 values above an arbitrary $xx,000 threshold, and the entire article omits information from any version of the show prior to 1984.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Nothing will be lost as this page is just a copy of this.— Chris! c / t 21:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with many reasons already cast as delete. Us441(talk)(contribs) 12:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Trim and merge into Jeopardy!. The top winners help establish the notability of the show, and are commonly cited in major publications when big winners appear (example).  I suggest something like a Top-10 list an addition to a few of the top overall money winners.  –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 21:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment yes, it's really a copyright violation of a website shown above. ApprenticeFan  work 00:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment No, it is not a copyright violation. Lists that lack creativity are not copyrighted. See Feist v. Rural --108.16.83.118 (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2010 (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.