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


 * 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   no consensus. Skomorokh 13:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

List of the largest single day Jeopardy! prizes

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

Article is unencyclopedic, a huge trivia dump and duplication of information found on [http://www.j-archive.com/ the Jeopardy! Archive] (a fansite) and the show's official website. Also, the article currently omits any information related to the 1964-75 and 1978-79 versions. Information in the current article can easily be pared down to a single paragraph showing the single game records/total winnings records to be included on the television show's main page. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong, speeedy keep. It's not unencylopedic nor does it omit from the earlier versions. It's simply that, given those clue values, no significant prize by modern standards could be won. Not that it means a ton but a hook from it was already approved for the main page through DYK. Why has American game show winnings records not been nominated? A list of prizes is one of the most necessary and basic lists for the full expansion of an article on Jeopardy! Staxringold talkcontribs 13:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do 193 separate amounts need to be mentioned, 35 of which belong to Ken Jennings? This information can very easily be summarized in the following table:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Category ! Amount ! Person ! Date
 * Largest single-day non-tournament winnings (post-2001)
 * $75,000
 * Ken Jennings
 * 07/23/2004
 * Largest single-day non-tournament winnings (prior to 2001)
 * $34,000
 * Jerome Vered
 * 05/21/1992
 * Largest single-day Kids Week total
 * $49,000
 * Kunle Demuren
 * 09/18/2002
 * }
 * Sottolacqua (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the same reason tallest building lists don't just list THE tallest building. Same reason the highest grossing movie doesn't just list the highest grossing drama, action, comedy, and romantic film. Depth of information is a good thing, and that's what split-off lists are for. This provides massive detail in a way an in-article table could not. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This provides "massive detail" that excludes anything that happened prior to 1984. You are omitting several years worth of data. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the List of tallest buildings and structures in the world groups structures by category and does not list 190+ buildings in the same category like List of the largest single day Jeopardy! prizes. The List of highest-grossing films lists one-quarter the amount of information in the Jeopardy article, is far more organized and provides several sources of reference, not just one fansite and an official website. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the same reason tallest building lists don't just list THE tallest building. Same reason the highest grossing movie doesn't just list the highest grossing drama, action, comedy, and romantic film. Depth of information is a good thing, and that's what split-off lists are for. This provides massive detail in a way an in-article table could not. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This provides "massive detail" that excludes anything that happened prior to 1984. You are omitting several years worth of data. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the List of tallest buildings and structures in the world groups structures by category and does not list 190+ buildings in the same category like List of the largest single day Jeopardy! prizes. The List of highest-grossing films lists one-quarter the amount of information in the Jeopardy article, is far more organized and provides several sources of reference, not just one fansite and an official website. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongest delete per Sottolacqua's solid reasoning. It's almost impossible to verify record setting information on a game show, so there's no way that this list could be ever sourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's directly sourced by Jeopardy's official website and confirmed by a comprehensive archive... Staxringold talkcontribs 16:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, does WP:IINFO mean anything to you? Jeopardy!'s website is a primary source, too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does J-Archive not solve that issue? Staxringold talkcontribs 16:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it solves the reliable sourcing issue, but not the "totally indiscriminate info" issue. As Sotto pointed out, List of highest-grossing films isn't as anally detailed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep "Trivia" and "indiscriminate info" are subjectively-defined terms. To me, this seems like a reasonable spinout of the main Jeopardy article. I agree with Staxringold: depth of information is a good thing. If you don't want to read the list, you don't have to, but it's nice to keep the list for people who would be interested in browsing through it. Zagalejo^^^ 19:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is both notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per RAN. Many RSs exist on this subject, so we should have an article on it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 193 entries is incredibly excessive. Also, why is $30,000 the minimum value? Why not $50,000? $18,000? $27,372? There is no need for this level of detailed minutia. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The tallest building lists run into the same problem. I chose $30,000 because that is what the Jeopardy site provides clear information for and it is a clear and round number (like the tallest building cutoffs that tend to be round numbers). Also, 193 is hardly excessive, see List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters that I drew the table formatting from. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEBHOST.  The article includes a link to | the Jeopardy website, and other than a minor correction of a mistake on that site and some color-coding, it's a copy of that table (which, coincidentally, goes no lower than $30,000).  I understand that the author put some work into pasting this information into a wikitable, but it certainly doesn't need to be repeated in its entirety.   Mandsford (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this is pure cruft and not really that important. I agree that something should be included on the main article, but we don't need to list each of the 193 times 30K or more has been given---especially as a link to the page from whince this came is available.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lists of presidents, highest grossing films, discographies, etc, etc all exist outside of Wikipedia as well. That does not remove the need for their existence. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lists of presidents & highest grossing films here aren't an exact duplication of the source websites listed in the articles. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep List is a good complete record of the information presented, and has enough quality prose to justify its retaining on Wikipedia. Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 22:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies WP:N and WP:V. Such lists of "biggest" things must have a cutoff somewhere; the article should not be deleted simply because others disagree with the cutoff. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Plenty of room for improvement on this one. I'm not sure what the praise is all about, for this is cut and paste plagiarism of a TV website.  Maybe it will become something less unoriginal as time goes on.  Mandsford (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge Not covered in reliable, independent sources. Lacking in content (or possible content) apart from a table which can be generated on (without copyright problems) the main Jeopardy article.  Editor delineated scope.  Comparison to other lists isn't all that instructive and many of the other lists we compare this article to have reliable, independent sources devoted to them (largest this, longest that, etc.).  Their existence is a product of those sources.  I'll be sorely disappointed if this is closed as no consensus or keep. Protonk (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For my money, j-archive isn't really a reliable source upon which to anchor this article. I'm dismayed to see people think it is. Protonk (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Can this list really be considered a copyright violation? I mean, a dedicated Jeopardy viewer could have compiled this information himself if he were so inclined. Zagalejo^^^ 23:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By and large WP does not consider (and though I am not a lawyer, US law seems to concur) 'statistics' copyrightable. Protonk (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Closest case I can think of that is recent was "C.B.C Distribution and Marketing Inc v. Major Leage Baseball Advanced Media", which I'm surprised to see doesn't have a WP article. Protonk (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is indicated by the fact that there has been plenty of third-party independent coverage of various of the records on this list. For example this CBS News story from 2004 discusses several of Ken Jennings' statistics, including his highest daily total, his previous highest daily total, and his daily average. Then there's this 2007 article in Tech Republic, and this 2009 press release and this local newspaper article about Larissa Kelly's records. --Orlady (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those aren't sources about the subject of the article. They are great sources for Ken Jenning's article or whoever that lady from NV is.  they are fine sources for the jeopardy article, but not this one.  Please don't just wave around sources for 'jeopardy' and 'prize money' as though those were about a listing of single day jeopardy prizes.  The techrepublic source isn't even really 'about' actual jeopardy winnings at all.  It is a kind of geeky imagining of how much money could be won in a day which offers an actual record at the end as a comparison. Protonk (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There are numerous Wikipedia lists that have not been reproduced by independent reliable sources 'in their entirety'. Rather, elements of those lists have received reliably sourced attention, both individually and collectively. When there are published sources documenting how Larissa Kelly's winnings compare with the previous highest winnings by women and with Ken Jennings' winnings, and when the techrepublic source speculates on how much it would be theoretically possible to win in one day and compares that with Ken Jennings' record, it's clear that there is independent reliably sourced attention to the records on this list. The fact that this particular assemblage of records has not been published by third-party sources does not make this particular assemblage non-notable. --Orlady (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * right, but the reliable sources we have are "here is this guy who won a lot on a particular day" and "here is this gal who won a lot on a particular day" supporting a giant table produced by a fan database showing top prize winnings in jeopardy. This isn't like wikipedia making a list of the 200 most wealth americans in history (such a list hasn't been made AFAIK, but something very much like it has). Protonk (talk) 17:58, 17 August 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.