Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larissa Kelly (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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa Kelly[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.

Subject authored a story that appeared in an online speculative fiction magazine, however wp:author does not apply as the subject is not regarded as an important figure is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique, has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, etc.

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) 14:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator should withdraw the above nomination and re-nominate with remarks addressed to this individual article and its notability rather than a generalized cut-and-paste nomination which may falsely attribute quotations of anonymous other editors, out of context, to this nomination. Robert K S (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Reasons for nomination stated apply to this individual article and it's lack of notability. "Subject authored a story that appeared in an online speculative fiction magazine, however wp:author does not apply as the subject is not regarded as an important figure is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique, has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, etc." Earlier AFDs are referenced as this subject's claim of notability is similar to those discussed in the earlier AFDs, and the same arguments for deletion and non-notability apply to Larissa Kelly as they do for the other article subjects.

The bulk of the subject's article is about her winning $223k on a game show, something that is not notable as many other individuals have done the same. Kelly has won over $900k less than the #10 person on the American game show winnings records list. This person is not notable. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's still the biggest female money-winning Jeopardy! champion, and while I wouldn't say that that alone makes her notable, it should be a factor for consideration, one which you're content to ignore. Robert K S (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being the biggest female game show winner on any show is not criteria that proves notability, just as being the biggest Hispanic winner, being the shortest person of stature, being blind, having six toes, etc. does not prove notability. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might look to my remarks the last time this article was nominated for deletion. Robert K S (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing your own comment in that discussion, "If not only because she is a woman, then why?" Sottolacqua (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Status as top female winner, plus substantial biographical information and possible interest as a sci fi writer breaks this article out from the mass of Gameshow Winner Trivia articles, in my estimation. Sources cited include Boston Globe and UPI. —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.
Keep - Wikipedia establishes a long precident of having "first of" being a criterion for notability, and "Female" has always been included. Rapier (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clarification that the subject is not the "first of" anything. She is (according to the article) the fourth-highest winner (excluding tournament winnings) and is the "highest winning female contestant in non-tournament play." According to the article, Maria Wenglinsky, another female contestant who does not have an article, is the highest single-day female winner. Also excluded from this article is information about who is the highest female winner including tournament winnings. Is it Kelly, or another contestant? Sottolacqua (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is already noted, and there is no reason to spit semantical hairs with other editors comments. On a list of "Female Jeopardy Winners", she is first. This is the second time that this article has been of for review on the grounds that the subject is not notable. In my opinion, she meets those criteria. Nothing further need be said. Rapier (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 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) 20:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has already survived an AfD, and the nominator makes no new compelling case as to why it should be deleted. Ideally, most of these contestants (excluding Ken Jennings) would be merged into something along the lines of List of notable Jeopardy! contestants. But in a straight 'keep-or-delete' debate, I have to say keep. faithless (^speak) 02:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Strange that this article was put up for Afd ones more.. hmm?. Anyway its a keeper.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good sourcing by the way too.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sufficient claim to notability to negate any good reason to delete.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:34, 19 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.