Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Rutter

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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Rutter[edit]

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

Although the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Wikipedia: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) 14:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, this is not a Recentism issue. Second, Brad still holds the record for biggest total money winnings on Jeopardy! For that achievement alone he is notable. Third, a quick Google shows that his win over Ken Jennings was highly publicized and that voluminous outside treatment should be enough to establish notability. Fourth, even if Rutter had never been on Jeopardy! he would still probably qualify as a minor Pennsylvania television celebrity for his hosting of Inquizative. Robert K S (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment–Biggest total money winner on foo game show does not prove notability. There are not articles for the biggest winners on Wheel of Fortune, Family Feud, Price is Right, etc. because this is not criteria that alone proves notability. WP:ENTERTAINER–Every person who has hosted a television show does not meet notability guidelines. Subject has not had significant roles in..television shows...does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, etc. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're simply fabricating rationalizations for being deletionist. This is a figure of notability. He held the record for winning more money on American TV than anyone. And he didn't do it in a one-off gig like Wheel--he went up against a lot of tough competition over several difficult tournaments. This alone should make him notable, but I notice you also ignored my other points. You're simply interested in focusing on one thing--"delete all game show winners from Wikipedia"--and that's sufficient justification for you. It's a little tiring to keep up with all your nominations and it's basically unfair because it monopolizes the time of all who would challenge your determinations in order to keep the content around. Robert K S (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sottolacqua, I'm a major deletionist, but that deletes 95% of television biographies if you only keep those who "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Rutter is clealy notable, and your comparisons fail to stand up. I've made some broad notability assumptions too, but calling every game show winner non-notable is absurd. Reywas92^Talk 22:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've not stated that every game show winner is non-notable. There are several game show winner/contestant articles that are clearly notable subjects (Charles Van Doren, Marie Winn, Joyce Brothers, Randy West, Larry Toffler, Charles Ingram, etc.). I have made no statement claiming that all game show winners are non-notable, and to categorize my efforts as that "is absurd". The AFDs I have started recently include similar arguments that simply becoming a champion on a game show does not make someone notable enough to warrant an article here. There have been hundreds of game shows with tens of thousands of contestants. Holding a one-day winnings record (that was later exceeded) on any given game show is not criteria that proves notability. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree. However, that was not the case with Rutter, who was never a one-day winnings record holder. He was and remains the all-time Jeopardy! winnings record holder, and also was at one point the all-time highest American game show winnings record holder. Either of these would be sufficient to sustain notability provided that they were backed up by some press, which is no problem in Rutter's case. While certain one-day Jeopardy! record holders probably don't meet notability standards either, the one-day record in combination with additional notable achievements results in a compound argument for notability which you seem to have only been attempting to attack by dissecting each factor rather than attacking the figure's notability as a whole given all of the factors involved taken together (as with, say Chuck Forrest or Jerome Vered). Robert K S (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, can anyone in this discussion actually name a single Wheel of Fortune contestant who wasn't their friend or relative (without doing a Google search)? You can't lump all game shows together. Jeopardy has a different sort of cultural resonance. Zagalejo^^^ 06:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I've been in favor of deleting every single Jeopardy Winner Trivia Page up till now — but Rutter's status as THE top winner (along with extensive secondary coverage) puts him in another category, I would argue. Then again, if consensus was to make this go page go away, it wouldn't bother me a whit. —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.
Keep As the highest TV winner ever, he is well-sourced and notable. Reywas92^Talk 22:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG demonstrated by significant coverage in independent reliable sources given in article (and which can be readily found for a record-holder). Rutter's appearance on Grand Slam also seems to me to be a second event, so WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rutter appeared on Jeopardy several times over a span of several years, and received media attention at several points during that run. I don't see how this is a BLP1E issue. Plus, I think it's natural for readers to be curious about the all-time biggest Jeopardy winner. Zagalejo^^^ 05:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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) 20:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rutter's had published notability for multiple separate achievements: the Million Dollar Masters Tournament, the Ultimate Tournament of Champions, Grand Slam, his Pennsylvania quiz show, and possibly his initial Tournament of Champions win. The BLP1E claim here is simply false. 271828182 (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a BLP1E. Meets WP:GNG for coverage over a wide firld of endeavours. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 16 October 2010 (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.