Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! audition process (3rd 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! audition process

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable aspect of the show. Poorly sourced over-coverage of a minor part of the show that is already well covered in the main article. Ridernyc (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This actually appears to be the fourth AFD for this article; the actual first one is located here.
Delete—This article is an exmaple of the FAQ section of WP:IINFO. This is not a notable subject and no more notable than any other audition process of television game shows. The argument that this article exists merely because the parent article is too long is ridiculous. Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show)#Audition process, a section in a similarly-structured article, concisely details the audition process in a paragraph. What is currently included in Jeopardy! audition process is a whole lot of rambling and not much encyclopedic information. There are already two separate sections that detail information about the same topic, Jeopardy! audition process#Historical practices and Jeopardy! audition process#Auditions in the Art Fleming era. This entire article can easily be concicely and accurately described in a paragraph or two (with appropriate references) and merged back into the main article...which has already been done. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely notable topic with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:N). Numerous news articles written about the Jeopardy! audition process are published every year, and numerous sources can be found by searching Google/Google News for related keywords (although the above links are not as helpful since they search on "process" in addition to the other terms). At least four published books have been written substantially covering the audition process (Dupée, Forrest & Lowenthal, Jennings, Harris), and several others cover it in detail (e.g., Fleming, Eisenberg, Trebek). Sotto's conception of WP:IINFO is wrongly expansive to anything he doesn't like. This article is not a "plot-only description of fictional works", a "lyrics database", an "excessive listing of statistics", a "news report", a "who's who", a "FAQ", or a "catalogue". Nor is it in any fashion indiscriminate by any definition of the term. In sum, a clear keep as meeting notability. Robert K S (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. At least seven independent, reliable book sources devote substantial (chapter-length or more) discussions to this specific topic. 271828182 (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you are referring to I assume are sources covering Jeopardy, simply because these books also cover the audition process is not an indication of independent notability. Ridernyc (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is the 4th AFD where we are told over and over again repeatedly about numerousness sources that cover the audition process, yet this article is severely lacking in sources. The article right now has a total of 6 sources. One source is a message board, another is a dead link to the Jeopardy site. Of the rest of the sources only one seems to be about the audition process, the rest are covering Jeopardy as a whole, one seems to not even be covering Jeopardy and is covering game shows in general. For 4 years now and 4 AFD's we have been told over and over again about sourcing, yet there still seem to very few sources and as far as I can tell not one source establishes this topic as notable independent of Jeopardy. Ridernyc (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response And this is the 4th AfD with absolutely no prima facie validity. Besides the 7 books I mentioned which cover the audition process (I note now that I also talked about them in the first AfD), there are over a hundred news articles that cover the Jeopardy! audition process every year. How do I know this? I read them all. Sometimes they are written by the contestants themselves, who happen to have careers in journalism. Sometimes they are written by journalists who just want to get on the show, or are assigned to report on the "Jeopardy! is coming to town" story, or are assigned to interview contestants as local interest pieces after receiving word from Jeopardy! that contestants from the journalist's area will be featured on the show. Brain Bus events (RIP) and campus recruiting events attract especial media attention. Here are news stories that are fresh, covering contestants that have only just appeared recently or are about to appear: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Here are some from the Brain Bus era: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. Some are merely perfunctory notices. Many are now behind paywalls. But the sheer volume and diversity of the reporting is more than sufficient to evidence "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is the basic requirement for notability to sustain a separate article on a topic. With this basic criterion more than satisfied by all the books and news articles, I should think it would be up to a party in favor of deletion to establish with evidence that virtually all of these sources should be discounted by virtue of unreliability or for some other reason, and I should also think that such evidence would have to be voluminous. Robert K S (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are no longer unreferenced sections. Sources have been expanded, dead links refreshed, citations needed, supplied. In answer to the charge that we could describe this in a paragraph, I put it to you that we should expand 'Wheel of Fortune audition process' into an article in preference to slapping tags on things and deleting them when they already include details that cannot fit in summary paragraphs. Anarchangel (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2011 (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.