Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larissa Kelly

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. Renata (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa Kelly

Jeopardy contestant; fails WP:N / one-event notability. slakr^\ talk / 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a record holder on the show who meets the baseline notability standard of coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is not just a run of the mill contestant on the show; she's the all time money leader among females and third all time in money winnings. Croctotheface (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, several other Jeopardy contestants--David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant), Frank Spangenberg, Jerome Vered, and arguably Eddie Timanus--all have articles that assert notability only for Jeopardy appearances. As far as merging, what's there now could be merged, I agree, but the article has existed for all of 10 minutes and could certainly be expanded. Croctotheface (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jeopardy!. Borderline notability, this information could easily fit into the article on the game show. Ani Mate 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable certainly exists because she is the all-time leader among females, and third (as of 5 minutes ago) highest all-time in total. She just extended her streak by one show a few minutes ago, too. Gary King (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons enumerated above by Croc.--HughGRex (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial, non-encyclopedic. Merge, as a last resort.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: User:Jimintheatl has demonstrated animosity toward me, as shown at this diff and at Talk:Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. This is quite likely just a case of stalking/agitating me. Croctotheface (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment quite likely reflects a case of exaggerated self-importance.Jimintheatl (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the others said Knowitall (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it'd make any difference, but my vote would be Delete for now and recreate when she attains notability. I've been watching Jeopardy! with interest lately and I think she might achieve something more than just 3rd-best, but we'll see. JuJube (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has proven that by being the all time leader for female contestants she belongs. she has also become the third highest money winner and anyone not wanting her listed in jealousy.Ducatigary (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jealous of what, exactly? JuJube (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All-time female champion is a sufficient claim to notability. She'd at least merit a mention somewhere, so outright deletion is unnecessary. Zagalejo^^^ 03:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More and more, people have started garnering interest in Larissa. Larissa DOES show that she has the makings of a Jeopardy! champion (pardon flowery language) and lately people haven't been this interested in the show since Ken Jennings' appearance. And now she's won over $220,000, already on the show six times, a rarity in itself these days.

Changed my vote to Delete. I second Reywas92's decision to recreate in case Larissa does very well during the Tournament of Champions. Iamwisesun talk 21:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If she wasn't the all-time winner for women. She is, so thats notable. rootology (T) 05:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe The previously-discussed (but unofficial) guideline regarding notability of Jeopardy! contestants has been that only the record-holders deserve their own articles. Obviously, being a female record-holder is only a sub-distinction. At some point, one has to draw the line at creating new sub-distinctions; perhaps being a female record-holder is noteworthy, but is being a hispanic female record holder, e.g.? or senior citizen hispanic female record holder? etc. With sufficient dichotomization, any champion can be said to be a "record holder" amongst some classification group. Still, it would be reasonable to ask to let the article stay at least until Larissa's run has ended and the extent of her actual eventual notability is determined. Robert K S (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly harder to discern characteristics such as ethnicity, though; male and female contestants are easier to tell apart. Gary King (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some such groups that are probably not universal enough to by themselves merit attention. However, it's also unlikely that if, say, the all-time record holder among Hispanic women over 65 won two or three times, there wouldn't be coverage in sources that establish notability. Otherwise I agree with Gary that being the all-time money leader among women is not similar to some silly classification system that makes everyone a record holder. Croctotheface (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Short mentions at the bottom of television newspaper columns do not merit notability. Also, Dan Pawson won more games; and he doesn't have an article (nor should he). Recreate the article if she hits 20 games; until then, delete the thing. Andy Saunders (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "a short mention" by any means. Croctotheface (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too would vote to KEEP. Other Jeopardy! winners have articles: Ken Jennings, Dave Madden, Jerome Vered, Frank Spangenberg, Eddie Timanus, maybe a dozen others. (Where is the article on Chuck Forrest?) Larissa Kelly is at least as deserving as the lesser of those luminaries. I wouldn't want to clutter up Wikipedia with an entry for every 5-time winner, but I think Kelly stands out above the crowd, and not only because she is a woman. Patzer42 (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If not only because she is a woman, then why? Robert K S (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think (though I'm having trouble finding a cite) that she holds other records as well: highest cumulative score after winning five games, or something like that. AJD (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that she's lost with only 6 wins, does this make anybody change their mind? Andy Saunders (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per most other editors reasoning (record holder, etc). LotLE×talk 20:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But she's not the record holder. Celeste DiNucci is the female record holder. If you include her $250,000 Tournament of Champions win, Celeste has over $100,000 more than Larissa does. Andy Saunders (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Spangenberg could likewise be gerrymandered out of holding any sort of record. Jerome Vered, too. Most money won by a woman in for non-tournament games is a valid record to care about, as most editors here seem to agree. Croctotheface (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Why do we need a seperate article on her biography???? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the show's article, with all the ones named before, including Celeste Dinucci! None of these people need an article of their own. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Unless there is more to say about this person, a line in the main Jeopardy article would seem to suffice, or perhaps a list of record-holding contestants. But an article like this, doomed to never be expandable past a few sentences, shouldn't stay gnfnrf (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jeopardy!. It should be noted that she was the first woman to win more than five games, but that's not enough for a separate, very short article. --Neferkiti (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can be expanded. This was nominated for deletion about ten minutes after it was created. Assuming there's nothing more than Jeopeardy to write about, there could be relevant details included from the interview article and about the games she played, if the issue of shortness is a problem for people. There's no need for this to be a stub forever, but expecting it to be more than a stub after existing for a few days strikes me as a bit unreasonable. Croctotheface (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa lost on the May 28th Game Sure, she set a record, but it wasn't much. My vote is ~~Delete~~, for now at least, as the article is only two lines long. Recreate if she does well in the Tournament of Champions in a few months. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about why "doing well" in a tournament setting would make the difference. Kelly has already demonstrated exceptional success on the show: at least one record (non-tournament money winnings for a woman) and possibly others. (She must at least be up there in terms of most money winnings in someone's first 1, 2, or 3 shows.) She's third all-time in non-tournament money winnings. I could understand arguing that nobody could be notable for Jeopardy alone, but I'm not sure why we should dismiss someone with a major record if it's not accompanied by "tournament success." Croctotheface (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my vote to Abstain Reywas92 ^Talk 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For pop culture archival value. Mabuse (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Larissa deserves her own entry. Just as Ken Jennings has and deserves his place Larissa's Jeopardy accolades are noteworthy within the shows history. Her husband was a previous contestant who's appearance was held to one episode by Ken Jennings, She is the winningest female in Jeopardy history (of regular season play) by number of returns and dollar total and her average daily winning was also commendable. She was a pleasure to watch and quickly won the hearts of many viewers with her genteel demeanor and aggressive wagering on final rounds and daily doubles. She is the only contestant I ever cheered for out loud as if watching my favorite sports team in a squeaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKIJOHNNY555 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC) — WIKIJOHNNY555 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I am on the same page as those who argue in favor of keeping due to her being the highest winning female in the show's history (regular season). However, I believe that (as stated) we shouldn't go beyond the distinction between male and female and start to create pages for the highest winning white, black, mexican-american, kenyan-american, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDalessandro (talk • contribs) 21:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there is a lot of potential from reliable sources, even if the article is bland right now (and my gut instict says that she does not deserve a page, but this is not a valid reason). –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Larissa has not only achieved relative celbrity status (which alone is enough to give cause for keeping the article), but also is the holder of several important Jeopardy! records. Ryan King (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.47.226 (talk) [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.