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 redirect to Jeopardy!. per Nyttend I don't think we can delete this for attribution reasons, so I'll redirect and protect GedUK  12:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! set evolution[edit]

Jeopardy! set evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

1. Article was previously speedily deleted and WP:SALTed based on CSD G4 guidelines on April 28, 2009, after discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution (3rd nomination)
2. The article was deleted after recreation on May 20, 2009, and deleted and salted again on September 8, 2010 after another recreation.
3. CSD tag added 12:48, October 7, 2013‎, but removed by administrator 18:15, October 7, 2013.

• Jeopardy! set evolution public log

AldezD (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, salt and obliterate There are other places this can go, and as I said in nomination #2, it's a whole lotta words just to say 'Jeopardy has three desks, a host's lectern, and a gameboard and they changed a few times because 80's neon and big old CRT's don't look good in 2013'. Sets change, things change, this can be a couple of paragraphs at most in the article. The sourcing is hilariously bad too; outright PR, message board postings and fan sites, along with the bevy of copyvio images, and I have low doubts the issues will change three years later. Nate • (chatter) 03:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What is an article about to be deleted and salted for ignoring past Afd verdicts? I'm sorry Nate, but your lvote is invalid because it isn't in the right form. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dang it, I'm not going to be able to go to "Final AfD" now :-P. Nate • (chatter) 03:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt per above. This is total fancruft to the extreme, and I have no idea why it was ever undeleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt This article's starting to approach teen slasher flick antagonist in unkillability. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments For one thing, the page was deleted in 2009 via the third AFD, and then it got recreated and edited tons of times. It was nowhere near the same thing that had been deleted at any previous AFD, so it did not qualify as a repost. For another thing, the second AFD was a blatant violation of our core policies: as you can see here, contents were merged from this page to the Jeopardy! article. This is a situation in which ((Copied)) applies, and as you see there, "The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists." Deleting the page is a violation of Wikipedia:Copyrights because it infringes copyright, i.e. breaking this US federal law. We're free to redirect it if we want, and even to protect the redirect if we want, but the page may not be deleted under any circumstances unless we delete the Jeopardy! article. Nyttend (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—With the exception of images that have since been deleted, the version you restored is nearly identical to the version that was deleted in April 2009 (comparison). Additionally, there were no edits between the last deletion/salt on September 8, 2010‎ and your recreation September 25, 2013‎ (edit history). What edit history are you viewing that is showing the article was "recreated and edited tons of times"? AldezD (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the page history, which shows numerous edits. Your diff shows numerous non-image changes, including the addition of multiple paragraphs; it was a G4 candidate when created, but it was changed around enough times that it no longer was. I wish you'd stop treating me like a vandal or ignorant person when I'm taking administrative action to enforce Wikipedia:Copyrights. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the page history: It shows no edits since the last delete and salt in 2010. edit history AldezD (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as a repost of the results of the second AFD, from 2009, because TenPoundHammer tagged it out of process and the 2010 AFD was closed as being a moot point. Let me remind you for the last time that this page may not be deleted for legal reasons; we can do whatever we want with the page right now, including redirecting it and levying indefinite full protection (note that I don't care about the contents), but hiding the history is not permitted, so go back to discussing the contents of the article and stop harassing me for enforcing our core policies. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Copying within Wikipedia restore was correct, but I think that the G4 decline was bad. This 2008–2010 diff shows 10–20 added sentences (43,000 → 45,000 bytes), but zero added sources or anything to address the concerns at WP:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution (2nd nomination) or WP:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution (3rd nomination) (heading toward deletion before the G4). The protection was removed accidentally, by either the April 2009 restoration or the May 2009 deletion after WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 6#Jeopardy! set evolution → Jeopardy! (logs). Flatscan (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Salt and Black Hole as per reasons given above - in addition to this there are no longer any images (due to copyright) which reduces the use of the article when you can't even see what the set(s) were/are like.... major fancruft and there is already a perfectly simple sized summary of the set development on the main article. Isn't even linked to the main article either. Adrianw9 (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Go away... I can't find it in me to conjure up anything to say about this horribly non-notable fancruft... oh, wait, I just did. Delete, and empty the salt shaker all over it. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the Jeopardy article and block recreation of the article. There's lots of source, but this article is just fancruft to the highest degree, with several non-free images having to be removed. However, a redirect would be fine, in my opinion. 和DITOREtails 18:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and full protect/salt, thereby both eliminating the problem and avoiding the attribution issues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and protect. WP:Merge and delete#Move to subpage of talk page is possible if the redirect must be removed from article space, but I don't see the need. Flatscan (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2013 (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.