Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategies and skills of Jeopardy! champions

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Closure request: permalink – (non-admin closure) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 22:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strategies and skills of Jeopardy! champions

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Strategies and skills of Jeopardy! champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTHOWTO / WP:GAMEGUIDE. Gameplay details are covered in Jeopardy! parent article. Several sections are case studies on strategies used by successful champions. Includes some but not all strategies that have led contestants to successful championships. Although article is sourced, content fails guidelines listed above. AldezD (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Article is also in large part a duplication of List of Jeopardy! contestants. AldezD (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW as nominator. The discussion here and the improvements to the article during this AFD have made the impact that I now feel the article should be kept. I'll help improve it in any way I can. Thanks. AldezD (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This AfD is specious as there hasn't been a single attempt to discuss, criticize, or improve the article on its talk page. The nominator basically states (because WP:NOTHOWTO / WP:GAMEGUIDE does equal "Gameplay"), inadvertently, that the Jeopardy! article, if one were to really speak the truth, violates NOTHOWTO far more, as it has a whole, very large, section on "Gameplay" (and that would violate NOTHOWTO), whereas this sub-article only describes certain strategies and skills, with almost no instructions on the rules. In fact, I can't even find the official rules anywhere. Does anyone know where they are located? Gameplay is not really a major subject in this sub-article, at least not in the way the main article does it, so if NOTHOWTO forbids gameplay, then delete it from the main article...NOT.
The Jeopardy! article only has two paragraphs that mention "strategy/strategies", and one only discusses two aspects of the Forrest Bounce. There might be more, but it's so scattered throughout the article that it's worthless for someone seeking to learn more about this subject without reading every word of the article. This sub-article improves Wikipedia and provides good information to those interested in this great game show. Feel free to improve it. -- Valjean (talk)
  • @Valjean: "...So scattered throughout" doesn't mean there should be a separate GAMEGUIDE article here to help people "to learn more about this subject". It's picking and choosing some but not all strategies used by "successful" champions. AldezD (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, "there should be a separate GAMEGUIDE article here" per WP:Summary style, as adding all this to the main article would create an undue size situation. My glances at RS mentions of the topic give me the impression that this article has the potential for becoming easily twice as large, so inclusion at the main article would very wrong.
  • Anyone is welcome to add more strategies they find. There has been no "picking and choosing" in any improper sense. I added what I found and, in the process, realized there's a huge amount of more information like it that can be added. There is no requirement that an article has to be "complete" before going public with it. Other editors should be given the opportunity to contribute as they see fit. That's what we do here.
  • I don't know why I should have to repeat this again and again, but it's apparently necessary to do it once again: "THAT'S WHAT WE DO HERE." Why is new article improvement being treated like a wildly odd concept for Wikipedia?
  • GAMEGUIDE is accurately dealt with below by XOR'easter, and there is no violation. Even if there were, then discuss it on the talk page and WP:FIXIT. -- Valjean (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears to point to the same page as NOTHOWTO. It is problematic that the nominator's assertions about the amount of strategy content in the main article appears to be false. -- Valjean (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article lede contains the quote "Although contestants possess exceptional abilities they are born with and skills they develop, they must also use certain game strategies to become real champions.". What are exceptional abilities they are born with and a real champion? What is not a real champion? Someone who has/has not won X number of games/$$$ in winnings? This is WP:OPINION. Text removed after AFD created. Re: "This sub-article", the sub-article details some but not all strategies random individuals employ to achieve success as a contestant. WP:NOTGUIDE applies because this article is nothing more than a myriad observation of behaviors exhibited by some but not all successful Jeopardy! champions. AldezD (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is call for improvement, not deletion. -- Valjean (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Feel free to improve it."/"That is call for improvement, not deletion."—@Valjean: You created the article. Why are you arguing others should improve it? AldezD (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because that's what we do here. Our first impulse should be to respect PRESERVE and see if we can save and improve a new article. Article's do not have to be perfect or complete. They never are. Even STUBs are kept and improved. If the topic clearly lacks NOTABILITY, that's a different matter, but that's not a problem here. I do not own the article, so others are welcome to improve it, and I'll certainly take heed of suggestions and criticisms and be part of that improvement process. If you just want to destroy, you're at the wrong place. At Wikipedia we try to build and improve. Normally, an AfD should only happen (assuming NOTABILITY is okay) after attempts have been made on the new article's talk page to bring it into line with PAG. You didn't do that. The very first sign that anyone had discovered the article had finally gone public was your AfD notice at the top of the page. That's really an uncollegial and unwikipedian way to behave. -- Valjean (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • What irks me most about this is that WP:BEFORE seems to have been ignored, especially parts C.2. and C.3. AfD should not be the very first option in this type of case. -- Valjean (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know why I didn't notice this before (now I see it was added later, but the nominator's exaggeration at the top doesn't exactly strengthen their argument. So far, and many more could be added, only the top five (depending on how one figures that) champions are mentioned here with their own short sections, yet the nominator writes: "Article is also in large part a duplication of List of Jeopardy! contestants." There are 48 people on that list. In what world does five become a "duplication" of a list of 48 people? That's just weird. Jeopardy!#Record holders and Jeopardy! The Greatest of All Time#Contestants are better places to look, and they need to be updated as they don't mention Amy Schneider yet. Any editor who finds some strategy mentioned by a former champion is free to add them and their strategy to this article, and, depending on whether they and their strategy are significant enough, to have a section with them added to the current list of five. Otherwise, a paragraph mentioning "Other...." past champions could be created if relevant. I can imagine that there are some strategies we haven't mentioned that were used by former champions. -- Valjean (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Valjean: I mention duplication because some of the strategies in this article could be/are covered in the contestant article for those specific contestants. Your reasonings and those of additional editors here have convinced me otherwise that this article should stay. So I'll make a second edit after this one to withdraw the nomination, and help where I can in this new article. Thanks. AldezD (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been well covered by sources even if the article needs improvement. The subject, as a whole, is less of a guide but more of weird deep dive everyone from random viewers during a good run to full-on fanatics discuss. Attempting to stuff it in to an article on the show alone could overwhelm it. GNG appears to be met and the opportunity should be given to build on the article as is.Outdatedpizza (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GAMEGUIDE actually says, Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context (emphasis added). Jeopardy! has certainly been prominent for long enough that how to play it is a topic discussed at large. Remember how mad everyone got at Arthur Chu? There's an encyclopedic topic here, under the fannish tone. XOR'easter (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. In addition to the sources in the article, I found a ComputerWorld article that adds an interesting perspective on incorporating human Jeopardy! strategies to AI plus an academic paper on the same; an article in The Economist that discusses Jeopardy! champion strategies in general as well as specifically about Holzhauer; and multiple articles about individual champions' strategies. The independent significant coverage of Jeopardy! gameplay strategies meets WP:GAMEGUIDE. Schazjmd (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:GAMEGUIDE are intended to keep out articles with no encyclopedic merit; however, the abundance of coverage regarding Jeopardy! strategies indicates that the topic is notable and merits inclusion here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Strategies_and_skills_of_Jeopardy!_champions&oldid=1059680334"