Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Is… Cliff Clavin? (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 keep. It's got sources now. However, personal attacks are not cool, guys. Shii (tock) 13:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Is… Cliff Clavin?

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

Overly detailed fancruft. The only sources are a Jeopardy! clue archive referencing clues that had to do with the show, and the rest is user-submitted trivia sites. Last AFD turned up print sources that resulted in my withdrawal, but on second thought the print sources seem tangential and trivial — one is a primary source from Jeopardy!, one is a Frasier episode guide that only gives a summary, and one is a newspaper article that only dedicates one sentence. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's before AFD? Who couldn't find his ass with both hands? What is a tool? ... The episode is notable being covered in detail in numerous books and newspapers. I have cited a few. Warden (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, sorry. Correct response, what is lay off the personal attacks? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What is an article that someone should have added found sources to last time around? Looks like thee are good sources, discovered last time around, that should have been added then. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the sources, and I think they're trivial. Did you not see that? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 10#! Nice to chat with you, I'm a long time fan of yours. That said, I disagree with you here. I agree the primary isn't worth squat for notability and the Frasier guide is entirely worthless. That said, the coverage in "Hope...", wahile fairly brief, is worth a look. If you are referring to the newspaper article I'm seeing from the last AfD, it's considerably longer than one sentence. That the Cheers episode pops up in unscripted asides (and Trebeck's "pulling a Cliff Clavin" call outs )in episodes of Jeopardy, while very difficult to properly source, push it over the edge for me. After all of that, I will say that the current article is heavy on plot and pointlessly verbose. Most episodes of most shows are not notable and deserve to be hammered out of existence. I see this as one of the very rare exceptions. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand Hammer's point of view that this episode isn't notable enough to deserve the separate article that most Cheers episodes don't have. But I respectfully disagree; I think that this is one episode that people really do discuss, separate and apart from the context of the series, in part due to its connections to the real Jeopardy. If not here, for example, where would one appropriately include the information about that connection? --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this TV episode that has had significant cultural impact; the phrase "people who have never been in my kitchen", which originated in this work, remains often cited years later [1]. The search "Cliff Clavin" + "Jeopardy" gets a large number of hits in my library's database of newspaper and magazine articles, with many brief but non-trivial mentions (and the database has just a small number of newspaper archives from 1990 when the episode originally aired). I've added three citations since the start of this AfD. There's enough coverage for WP:N notability, even if there's not a single reference we can point to that on its own is in-depth coverage. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why does the nominator feel the need to once again nominate something for deletion, he previously nominated that ended in Keep? You nominate a ridiculous number of articles for deletion regularly already, no sense having all of them open again because you didn't get your way. And sources were found last time, you withdrawing you nomination because of them. Dream Focus 02:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please comment on this issue, not editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable episode, we'll be discussing this for thousands of years.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable episode, this artical is extreemly informative fairly well written, lots of sources, I can tell the person who wrote this put a lot of time and effort to making it right. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - episode is notable, feels like a nomination made in vain.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:01, 18 October 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.