Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Jeopardy! (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 merge to Jeopardy!. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Jeopardy![edit]

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

Same reason as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Kids Week. Celebrity Jeopardy is not an independent television program; it's merely a special week of shows that has aired sporadically.

WP:NOTINHERITED, and a handful of special episodes over the course of a season are not notable enough to warrant an entirely separate article. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jeopardy! per nominator. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jeopardy!. JTRH (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, no standalone notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jeopardy!, seems a bit overkillish. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jeopardy! per nom. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Addi hockey 10^e-mail 20:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; independently notable subject. The result of all the above "merge" votes (many of which appear to have been canvassed from a Wikiproject, as they come from editors who have never had any involvement with the article before) would be the same close result as the previous nomination for deletion, "bad forum": AfD is not the forum for making redirection requests. The nomination rationale hinges on Celebrity Jeopardy! having no independent notability. This is incorrect. Celebrity Jeopardy! is independently notable and does not require "inherited" notability to be counted as notable. There are countless parodies and references to Celebrity Jeopardy! and as clicking any of the "hunt for references" links at the top will show, there are plenty of sources to show this, in the news, in books, and on Google Scholar. Robert K S (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—This artile has not been nominated for a redirect as clearly stated in the earlier AFD, so the "bad forum" argument does not apply. If, however, the result of this AFD is to merge as was with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Kids Week, a similar AFD, then so be it. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above concerns. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Perseus, Son of Zeus 22:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. Us441(talk)(contribs) 23:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have many articles about certain aspects of famous television shows. In addition, the concept of Celebrity Jeopardy! is somewhat different than regular Jeopardy! Purple backpack89 07:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—The gameplay and concept is the exact same as in regular gameplay; contestants on these episodes just happen to be celebrities. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's often treated as something different. If it weren't, why would there be so many parodies of Celebrity Jeopardy!? References to Celebrity Jeopardy!? You might as well be arguing that we shouldn't have a Wikipedia page for the All-Star Game because "it's just another baseball game, same rules and everything--let's just delete that page". Robert K S (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Celebrity Jeopardy! is already adequately covered in List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events#Celebrity Jeopardy!. Random special weeks of shows that happen to feature celebrities as contestants are not notable enough to warrant a completely separate article from Jeopardy! or even List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. The Major League Baseball All-Star Game is clearly a notable annual sporting event, just as the Super Bowl and America's Polo Cup are. Comparing a week of special game show episodes—no different than any other episode of a daily game show other than the fact that celebrities play the game—to the Major League Baseball All-Star Game is not an accurate comparison. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, this comes down to your opinion vs. reality. You say, "non-notable". The general notability guideline says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." As I mentioned before, the links at the top of the page prove amply that Celebrity Jeopardy! is treated, significantly, by reliable source independent of Jeopardy! The numerous "Merge" votes you've canvassed don't contradict this simple premise. This is an open-and-shut keep. Robert K S (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        There are no reliable sources listed in this article that would prove notability. The main "source" is an unreferenced fan page showing game statistics. Mentioning the phrase "Celebrity Jeopardy!" in a publication is not a notable reference nor is it significant coverage, and the links you provided (in the news, in books, and on Google Scholar) show no real resemblance of notability on the topic. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a television show; the information in on the page is sourceable to the episodes themselves, and in this regard "citing" to the J! Archive is merely is serviceable pointer to the episodes' airdates and show numbers. Citing to television episodes is entirely proper and done by very many wikiprojects. As to your argument that the hundreds of mentions in the media, the news, books, the parodies, etc., etc. do not add up to independent notability, this is an astounding conclusion that flies in the face what is out there. Is your quibble that these very many mentions which evidence notability are not used as citations in the article? I do not think this is a requirement for the establishment of notability, nor would it be proper here--it would be overkill. Robert K S (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        My "quibble" is that this article is overkill. Every piece of minutia about Jeopardy! is not a notable enough aspect that it needs an entirely separate article on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not the house-all fan site for any topic. This article is akin to the former set evolution, in popular culture, recurring categories, seniors tournament, etc. articles—Although they're all part of a television program, they are not independently notable and they are already covered with enough detail and information in Jeopardy! or List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. Obviously a show that has appeared in various forms for several decades has notable features, but every single minute aspect of this program is not notable enough for a separate article. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        A deletionist preference isn't a rationale for deletion on a bogus inference of non-notability. The coverage proves separate notability for this topic. Robert K S (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An AfD is not determined by canvassing votes, it is determined by WP policy. In this case, the crux of the matter is notability. User:Sottolacqua's arguments are all in the same vein: "it's not notable, it's just a special week on a game show", blithely dismissing considerable counter-evidence: what other week of a game show has been the subject of at least two independent parodies (on SNL and the Tonight Show) that have been recurrent sketches for the better part of two decades? There aren't any comparable parodies of regular Jeopardy, or the Tournament of Champions, or any other "special weeks", so the comparisons with the Seniors Tournament and Kids Week simply don't hold water. Celebrity Jeopardy (Saturday Night Live) has its own article. User:Robert KS has linked to mentions of Celebrity Jeopardy (distinct from the regular show) in many, many published books and news articles, none of which have been refuted in any specific way: Sottolacqua sweepingly declares 612 news mentions over the course of twenty years show "no notability". I find it highly doubtful that Sottolacqua examined very many of these 612 mentions, since many of them are behind paywalls; thus I find his confident asseveration that they are all non-notable is almost certainly empty bluster on his part, and further evidence of the bad faith character of this AfD. Refute the sources, and maybe then there would be grounds. Otherwise, this is clearly notable, and clearly keep. 271828182 (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Calling the Celebrity Jeopardy! page non-notable on the basis of WP:NOTINHERITED is absolutely foolish and suggests a facetious duality. Celebrity Jeopardy! may not be a standalone program, but neither is SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy! nor the two dozen other SNL sketches that have received their own pages, several of which have not been properly sourced. User:Sottolacqua's assertion that Celebrity Jeopardy! is "a handful of special episodes over the course of a season" ignores its true scope; Celebrity Jeopardy! may be a subset of Jeopardy! episodes, but if 100 episodes aired over an 18 year period does not define notability, then perhaps the hundreds of pages for television programs that have aired fewer episodes should also be reevaluated. If there is any issue with the Celebrity Jeopardy! page, and there is, it is not its supposed "non-notability," but the dearth of non-list information on the page which future edits could correct. Toadwildride (talk) 21:33, 5 December 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.