Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Lowenthal


 * 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   merge to Jeopardy! (or a suitable other target) for the time being, the suggestion to create a list of important contensants that don't otherwise support a stand-alone article is a good one. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark Lowenthal

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Earlier AfDs related to article: 

Although the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Recentism is factor, as there has been little/no coverage since the initial appearance on a game show. WP:BLP1E can also be applied.

Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following:
 * "Winning...on a game show does not strike me as meeting the threshold for notability, even if it leads to a couple of additional appearances down the road."
 * "It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant."
 * "Winning [$xx,000] or temporarily holding the winnings record do not establish notability."
 * "Clearly a figure of transient notability."

Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD.

 Sottolacqua  (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep on the grounds that the deletion nomination and the arguments above are generalized statements cut-and-paste by the nominator to a large series of deletion nominations and are not directed to this individual article. This individual is a co-author of a book on the subject of Jeopardy!.  Essentially, the nominator has set up several "straw men" in this and his other nominations that the individuals whose articles are nominated for deletion do not qualify for notability because "just winning on a game show doesn't make one notable", ignoring that in each case these aren't people who "just won on a game show" but instead have other factors involved as well: superlative records, long-standing records, significant press, authorship of books, repeated and long-standing recollection on the show, or other minor claims to celebrity.  Faced with these arguments, the nominator simply argues them one-by-one--or declines to address them--in either case ignoring what ought to be seen as a compounding effect that adds up to notability. Robert K S (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—This individual does not have a superlative or long-standing record, and has not received significant press. He merely won about $160k on a game show, a figure many others on several different shows have surpassed. Not even every $500,000 or $1 million winner on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? is notable.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject fails WP:AUTHOR notability guidelines, which state that the subject must be regarded as an important figure; be known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; or has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, etc. This person simply wrote a book about their experiences on a game show.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment how much money a contestant wins or how many times they appear is irrelevant to WP:GNG, which I claim is satisfied (see below). In particular, notability is not about winning a WP:BIGNUMBER of games or dollars. RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  19:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is probably the worst of the Lucky Winner of a Gameshow pages. No biographical nothing, scant information about routine amount of money won, no compelling sources. There are a FEW of the Jeopardy Winner pages that clear commonly accepted notability standards, in my opinion, but this clearly isn't one of them. —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.
 * Move to Mark Lowenthal's Jeopardy! appearance per WP:BLP1E (when a living person is notable for only one event, we write about the event), and rewrite article accordingly. I found sources covering his appearance significantly:
 * Patricia Brennan. "Man Wins Jackpot on Game Show." The Washington Post.  November 20, 1988.  p. y.05.  (498 words; Lowenthal is the main subject)
 * Patricia Ward Biederman. "Backstage at 'Jeopardy!': Tune in for the Nervous Hopefuls, the Hard-working Researchers, the Well-dressed Host and the Amazing Winners on the Smart Set's Favorite Game Show."  Los Angeles Times.  January 29, 1989.  p. 19.  (4671 words; Lowenthal is covered specifically in three paragraphs in the article).
 * Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject creates a presumption of notability (WP:GNG). Thus, the article should not be deleted but moved to cover the event per WP:BLP1E.  (Incidentally, I saw Forrest and Lowenthal's Secrets of the Jeopardy! Champions cited in a bunch of articles but not significantly enough to qualify as a second event.)  RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  19:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge multiple contestants who have no other coverage into a list article, such as List of notable Jeopardy! contestants. No reason for each person to have his or her own article, based on my brief review of the evidence, but these appear to have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources.  Thus, if merged into a list, there's a clear potential for an FLC to come out of this. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete WP:BLP1E Secret account 22:36, 19 October 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.