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!. Jujutacular ^talk 05:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Seniors Tournament[edit]

Jeopardy! Seniors Tournament (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)

Completely unsourced article about a non-notable game show tournament. No sources for participants, game scores, airdates, etc. Same reasons for deletion as listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Million Dollar Celebrity Invitational. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's some secondary coverage, cf.
  • Mark Cooper. "TV Show Punches Memory Button." The News (Boca Raton). July 11, 1994. p. 1C. [1]
  • Rakesh Agrawal. "Man in Jeopardy and Big Bucks at Stake." South Florida Sun Sentinel. July 22, 1994. p. 3B. (ProQuest) (describing Jim Brachman's appearance in the Seniors Tournament, as well as a Final Jeopardy! round in which he participated)
  • Samantha Yost. "Williamsburg Man a Finalist on Jeopardy!" Orlando Sentinel. May 22, 1987. p. 3. (ProQuest) (brief description of contestant Lee Saunders, mentions that he was "one of 15 national finalists" out of "thousands of people in a national search for senior contestants")
  • Jesse Leavenworth. "You Could Have Slept in an Answer on Jeopardy!" Hartford Courant. July 25, 1995. p. B1. (describes how the Jeopardy! writing team contacted Old Riverton Inn owner Pauline Telford for verification in a clue used during the Seniors Tournament taped in February 1995 that Elliot Shtier responded to correctly)

RJaguar3 | u | t 20:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of your notations...

• "TV Show Punches Memory Button." - Human interest "A man will compete on a game show." Nothing notable about the actual tournament.

• I happen to think mentioning its existence, when it taped, when it is scheduled to air, the amount of the grand prize, and the length of time are quite significant facts about the actual tournament. The criterion involved is "significant coverage. Heck, I've cited casting notices and interviews about particular contestants for Legends of the Hidden Temple, even though you might decry them as "human interest." RJaguar3 | u | t 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Man in Jeopardy and Big Bucks at Stake." - Essentially this is "A man appeared in a game show tournament and played Final Jeopardy." Nothing notable about the actual tournament.

• This article, like the previous one, mentions significant facts about the tournament, like its top prize, the minimum guarantee for finalists, when the final aired (the Thursday night prior to the article's publication), and some information about what happened on the individual episodes. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Williamsburg Man a Finalist on Jeopardy!" - A brief description of a contestant and that a game show held a national search (which several do, not just Jeopardy). Nothing notable about the actual tournament.

• That Jeopardy! held a national contestant search to find 15 contestants for its tournament is a significant fact, just like the airdates of the particular contestant's episodes. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "You Could Have Slept in an Answer on Jeopardy!" - Jeopardy verified info with the source about a clue that appeared on one episode of what happened to be part of a tournament. Nothing notable about the actual tournament.

• It mentions in passing that the 1995 Seniors Tournament taped in February. But I do see your point with regard to this article. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply mentioning the phrase "Jeopardy! Seniors Tournament" in a publication does not make this article topic notable. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:GNG puts it: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The first three articles I believe more than trivially mention the seniors tournament. Even though the articles may be about contestants appearing on that tournament, this does not automatically make those articles trivial coverage. Also, coverage is not less significant if you brand the article as "human interest": this does not factor into significance of coverage. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:38, 9 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom's analysis of the sources Rjaguar dug up. As it stands, this is not separately notable enough for its own article, but it certainly warrants a mention in the parent article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep reliable sources show notability, despite being denigrated as "human interest". Yesterday a a source was denigrated as only an "interview". Reliable is reliable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the main Jeopardy page. Total agreement here with Ten Pound Hammer. —Carrite, Oct. 10, 2010.
• Merge - "Reliable is reliable" true, but it is not independantly notable. TPH hit it on the head this time. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:19, 11 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.