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) 00:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Vered (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(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) 14:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; notable game show figure whose record stood for well over a decade and who had a number of outside media references. As an aside, I also don't think honest of you to take a set of quotations from some other AfD(s) and re-paste them into a new set of AfDs, out of context, without saying how they're applicable in the instant individual cases, without attribution, and without linking back to where they came from. You're essentially making an "appeal to authority" of the opinions of anonymous individuals, opinions that may not have been intended to apply to this AfD. It's falsely giving the impression of bolstering your deletion nominations, and it's just unethical. Robert K S (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The article contains original research speculating that the subject's original winnings would/should be exactly doubled if he were to have appeared after an increase to the dollar values used in the game. The article also states that the record "would have stood for 12 years" because of this, which presents a false and inaccurate case for notability. The subject is not even in the top 10 American game show winnings records.

The subject is simply a non-notable game show contestant who–at one time–held the record for highest single-day score on the syndicated version of a game show. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misrepresenting the game and the rule change. If tomorrow the NBA made a rule change that all 2-point shots were to be revalued at 4 points, all 3-point shots at 6, etc., would that invalidate all of the old records? Of course not. This is not "original research" or "speculation" and you are again misusing arguments in order to "win". It's not right, Sotto. Robert K S (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting a record prior to 2001 should be invalidated. I'm noting that simply doubling records prior to 2001 so they equate to values that "could be achieved" after 2001 is original research (because risk/reward factors are not the same and one cannot assume that a wager of $x,000 prior to 2001 would be double $x,000 simply because clue values are doubled). I'm also making the point that using this type of logic to state that a record "would have stood for 12 years" and thus make the topic notable is not accurate, is speculative and is original research. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your introduction of "risk/reward factors" is the unevidenced presumption here, not the clue value doubling, which is indisputable. This is not the space for a debate, but you're wrong there, too. The clue value doubling had no statistically significant affect on wagering behavior. (To continue my example, you're essentially arguing that a doubling of NBA point values might have some effect on players' willingness to risk going after 3-pointers.) Robert K S (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not essentially arguing anything related to NBA point values. Making an assumption that a Jeopardy! scoring record "would have stood for 12 years" is exactly that—an assumption. Assumption = speculation = original research. The assumption is in the article to inflate the subject to a level of notability that is not accurate or appropriate. I don't dispute that he once held a record/records with regards to appearances on a game show. Being a game show contestant who once scored the highest on a single episode is not criteria that proves notability. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If "would have stood" is the wording currently used, then I would agree, it could be better worded so as not to present so much what sounds like retroactive forecasting (not "original research" as there is no actual research involved here); the fact remains, however, that Jered's adjusted record stood for 12 years. Robert K S (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusting a record to a future date that had already been beaten multiple times in those 12 years still does not add any notability to the original achievement. It also still assumes that someone who wagered "$5,235" in 1992 would have wagered exactly "$10,470" post 2001, which is still speculation and original research. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I beg to differ regarding the notability of the length of the adjusted record's standing, the measure isn't what I think or what you think on these pages. Notability should be judged objectively from outside sources. Your seeking to discount it based on your reasoning is no more valid than my seeking to count it based on mine. Robert K S (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of Gameshow Trivia. Are we going to start memorializing lottery winners, too? —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.
  • If someone won the biggest lottery ever and received press coverage for it, wouldn't that be an indication of notability? Robert K S (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking in terms of this theoretical, if it were the BIGGEST LOTTERY EVER it would be encyclopedia-worthy, but if it was just another lottery winner, it would not be, no matter how many so-called "Reliable Sources" (sic.) could be mustered covering the win. This is not a good line of argument to advance for any Jeopardy winner other than the BIGGEST EVER, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Jerome Vered's Jeopardy! appearance (per WP:BLP1E, where policy tells us to cover the event, not the person) or merge to List of Jeopardy! champions (where notability is presumed to be necessary for inclusion). Article clearly satisfies WP:GNG, as demonstrated by refs in article already. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Vered has received sufficient attention to warrant an article. (I added a couple of sources during an earlier AFD.) A move to Jerome Vered's Jeopardy! appearance seems unnecessary to me. Vered made multiple (non-consecutive) appearances on Jeopardy, and was in the news at several points throughout that run. He also got some attention for his success on Win Ben Stein's Money. There's no single "event" to speak of. Zagalejo^^^ 05:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 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) 20:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sottolacqua's multiple Afd's on this topic are (1) borderline bad faith editing, as per Robert KS points out above, and (2) all based on the poorly-reasoned BLP1E policy. Many clearly encyclopedia-worthy individuals in history are only famous for "one event", such as virtually all assassins and record-breakers. If Nicolas Mahut merits a Wikipedia article, so does Vered. More importantly, Vered set a long-lasting record that achieved published notability, and over a decade later competed in a separate event that also received published notability. That's more than one event, so Sottolacqua's argument fails on its own terms. 271828182 (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE validates Nicolas Mahut's notability and WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid when reasoning to keep/delete articles. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahut qualifies, as far as I can tell, from participating in a major and holding a record. Vered has far exceeded the analogous accomplishments in Jeopardy gameplay. You haven't addressed my main point, though: Vered's record and his Ultimate Tournament performance are two events separated by 13 years, and both achieved independent notability, which pretty clearly refutes your BLP1E argument. 271828182 (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Jerome Vered (2nd nomination)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge. I have to agree with the borderline bad faith edits unfortunately, at least as they apply to Vered for the reasons below. The nominator cites a) Wikipedia:Recentism; b) WP:BLP1E; and c) other comments by other editors in past nominations. In my opinion, none of these three provide grounds for deletion. As to Recentism, I can't see how this applies to Vered. The Recentism page advocates the 10-year test (i.e. Will this seem important in 10 years?). This article was created 13 years after Vered appeared on Jeopardy!...I can't imagine stretching recentism that far. As to the second point, I quote from WP:BLP1E: "Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." The very policy you are using doesn't support deletion; instead, it supports merge and redirecting. Perhaps I'm reading that wrong, but if you wanted to create List of Notable Jeopardy! Champions and merge all the information, that'd be fine, but I fail to see how that policy provides independent grounds for deletion. Finally, as to the other editors, it's been said already: you can't use past AfD nominations like that. Apparently the nominator tried to post a mass AfD nomination in the past and was told to nominate them individually. Clearly, the nominator misses the point of posting individually. If it was okay to post the exact same thing for every single individual article nominated, then it would have been okay to leave it as a mass nomination in the first place. I haven't really weighed in on the earlier contestants nominated because those were more borderline cases, but the way you phrased this nomination is ridiculous; using Recentism to support your contention that the article was created based on one event 13 years ago? Ridiculous. Bds69 (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Upon further review, while I pretty much hate the Jeopardy Fanboy pages, this guy's achievement of setting a one day record plus appearances on other quiz shows would seem to separate him from the pack. Article passed notability muster a year ago, so I'll strike my previous DELETE recommendation in the name of Peace, Love, and Understanding. (What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?) Carrite (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it is not at present noted in the article, Vered was also subsequently a researcher for Win Ben Stein's Money. Robert K S (talk) 17:39, 21 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.