Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant)


 * 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. The WP:BLP1E argument does not appear to have been substantially rebutted. T. Canens (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable game show contestant.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons for deletion as above—non-notable game show contestants, both who appeared on eight episodes or less:

 Sottolacqua  (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly a figure of transient notability. Wikipedia is not news. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  05:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  07:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable or, at best, notable for one event only. Ken Jennings is notable not so much for his Jeopardy win but because we has able to turn it into a streak of mini-celebrity afterwards.  Not this guy.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Larissa Kelly has her article. So does Tom Walsh. So why not Roger Craig? Us441(talk)(contribs) 11:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * More pertinently — why any of them? —Carrite, Sept. 25, 2010.


 * Qualified Keep Does WP have a policy acknowledging record-holders in sports? It appears to in some cases (e.g., golf).  John Isner, to offer another example, is a pretty non-notable tennis player, except for his record-setting 11 hour match.  If it is general policy to acknowledge record-holders, Craig meets that threshold, having broken a record of long standing. 271828182 (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Your reference to Isner is completely specious, if not outright mendacious. The Isner article contains a lot more information than just "participated in the longest tennis match in history." Mtiffany71 (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - un-notable biography. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of Gameshow Trivia. —Carrite, Sept. 25, 2010.
 * Delete The only thing that he did was play on Jeopardy for one week. If there is an article on notable Jeopardy contestants, he should be noted there instead. -- Carpet master 101  17:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT. Not opposed to being mentioned in the appropriate Jeopardy! article/section.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as he is only notable for one event (winning many money on a game show) and Wikipedia is not the news.  Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  18:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep He broke the records of Ken Jennings for one-day winnings and Larissa Kelly for "Highest 5-game total on Jeopardy!, first 5 games (unadjusted)".  Since, as evidenced by those articles, Wikipedia is documenting the "records" aspect of Jeopardy, and he's the holder for two of the more notable ones, it makes sense to have an article on him in Wikipedia.  Heatkernel (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is no temporary. In this case if someone breaks his records, then automaticaly become unnotable. Thus he is not notable. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  18:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * People who get published in the Guinness Book of World Records, or have a notable athletic record, are notable, even when someone beats their record later on.  D r e a m Focus  03:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:BLP1E. He broke a show record on the show, but did absolutely nothing else of note. Should he remain in the public eye for a long time á la Ken Jennings, then he'd make the cut. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My !vote also applies to Tom Walsh's article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete both. No enduring notability. Jimmy Pitt   talk  19:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)**
 * Keep There are over 91,400 Google hits for "Roger Craig" Jeopardy and over 130 news articles. It certainly shows the notability even after his run is over. Desperado28
 * Please see WP:GOOGLEHITS -- Carpet master 101  02:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's been a large amount of media coverage of his record on the show, which occurred only a few days ago. History indicates that the holders of Jeopardy records continue to receive attention for a long time after their accomplishments (similar to holders of sports records). Now that I think of that analogy, I propose that record winners on Jeopardy should be treated like people who have held world records in track & field (athletics), who are deemed notable under WP:ATHLETE. --Orlady (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also Keep Tom Walsh (Jeopardy! contestant), for the same reasons. (When I first !voted, I didn't notice that this was a two-article AfD. --Orlady (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Orlady (full disclosure: Roger is a long-time friend of mine). Raul654 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or Userify per Larissa Kelly, Tom Walsh and John Isner. Maybe re-evaluate AfD when someone breaks his single-day record. (Full disclosure: I think Roger Craig is a badass) -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep both I agree with Orlady. These people have earned their spot in the history of one of the most popular game shows. Verifiability is not a problem, and I don't think we need to fret about BLP1E when the "event" is clearly a good thing. (Full disclosure: I have the same real-world name as one of the competitors under discussion here.) Zagal e jo^^^ 06:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This BLP1E only being relevant when the event is a not good thing is news to me. I've never seen that suggested before, and find it a pretty strange interpretation of the rule which, to me, has absolutely nothing to do with whether the event is good, neutral, or catastrophic :). No offense intended, just think that's a very novel take on the rule. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  18:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I recall, the main impetus to create the rule was to prevent undue harm to people associated with scandals or embarrassing incidents. IMO, this article doesn't really violate the "spirit" of BLP1E. Zagal e jo^^^ 23:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep If the record is notable enough to get this much news coverage, then it is a notable accomplishment.  D r e a m Focus  03:26, 2 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.