Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! audition process (2nd nomination)

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. AfD is not cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! audition process

Overly detailed and unsourced information; reads somewhat like a how-to guide. Doesn't seem to warrant a merge, except for a couple points. Was kept back in 7/07 on the condition that sources be added, and that ain't happened. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary and vain article. Yardleyman (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though I would agree that the article is a bit of a how to at the moment, a quick search indicates that there seem to be a reasonable number of decent sources out there (gnews search, article in paper) that it could meet WP:GNG. I'd suggest that trimming out the unsourced and unencylcopedic sections would be better than sticking it up for AfD. Quantpole (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending evidence of failure to find sources. Oh, nevermind, I'll do a bit: Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar (although that last bit has some obviously false positives). Overall, there's plenty with which to build an article. Note that this is actually the third AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! auditions was the first. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Evidence of failure to find sources" is, by definition, impossible to present, and Google searches are not sources. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the Jeopardy! audition process is covered in multiple reliable sources. Concerns with style should be addressed through WP:CLEANUP, not AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a Jeopardy! fansite nor a how-to. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not clear how this is worth including in an encyclopedia. Maybe some of the content is worth serving as the basis for Game show selection process. FWIW, I participated in the Jeopardy! audition process last fall, & the article differs significantly at several points from my experience, & from what I was told would happen. Too bad sharing that information here would violate WP:NOR. :) -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.