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. (non-admin closure) →Στc. 00:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Recreation of article previously deleted on 2 October 2010‎. Winning a game show tournament of champions is not criteria that meets WP:GNG and does not rebut WP:BLP1E arguments in previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant)). Being a champion on Jeopardy! is categorized as one event—appearing on more than one episode does not disqualify WP:BLP1E. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references presented in this article to not provide significant coverage that meets WP:GNG requirements.

• Record Set On ‘Jeopardy!’, New York Times, 15 September 2010—Nothing more than a four sentence blurb about Craig's record.
• Racking up $$: Winner on Jeopardy is local woman, Winston-Salem Journal, 22 September 2010—dead link.
• Roger Craig game 7—Link is to an unreferenced game show fansite.
• Pricey day at Pardy, New York Post, 22 September 2010—Human interest piece that mentions winnings records.
• GRADUATE STUDENT ROGER CRAIG SURPASSES KEN JENNINGS AS HIGHEST ONE-DAY ‘JEOPARDY!’ WINNER, CBS Television Distribution—A press release by the distributor of the syndicated program. Not news coverage.
• Phylogenetic tree information aids supervised learning for predicting protein-protein interaction based on distance matrices, Roger Craig, 2007—Research article written by Roger Craig. Not news coverage or material that proves criteria for WP:GNG.
• Optimizing nucleotide sequence ensembles for combinatorial protein libraries using a genetic algorithm, Roger Craig, 2009—Research article written by Roger Craig. Not news coverage or material that proves criteria for WP:GNG.
• The End of Delusion, Esquire Magazine, 12 November 2011—Article begins discussing professional athletes and their drive for success, but moves to a recap of the tournament and Craig's performance, reinforcing the "drive for success" point of the article the author mentions at the beginning.

Sottolacqua (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Full disclosure - Roger's a good friend of mine). The fact that he won the tournament, after setting the single-day record last year, rebuts the argument that he's notable for only one thing. Raul654 (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roger was interviewed for Stephen Baker's recent Jeopardy book Final Jeopardy: Man Vs. Machine and the Quest to Know Everything (there's essentially an entire chapter devoted to him). And interviewed by CBS News. He's recieved more press than any other contestant in Jeopardy history save for Ken Jennings. Raul654 (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As I said last year in the first AfD, there was a large amount of media coverage of his record on the show, and history indicates that the holders of Jeopardy records continue to receive attention for a long time after their accomplishments (similar to holders of sports records). Indeed, here's a recent article about how intimidating Craig can be. It still seems to me that record winners on Jeopardy should be treated like people who have once held world records in track & field (athletics), who are deemed notable under WP:ATHLETE. Now that Craig has also won big in the Tournament of Champions, an accomplishment that is documented in Esquire (magazine) and a number of local news media sources, I think it's all the more absurd to assert that he is a WP:BLP1E who should not be documented in an article. --Orlady (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—The Sun Times article you presented briefly mentions Craig's record, skill and knowledge base, but this is most certainly not significant coverage of Craig. The article topic is about the reporter's own experience on the show and only mentions him in passing. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct that the Sun-Times article is not about Craig. Rather, I presented it as evidence that his fame/notoriety/notability transcends the news coverage of his first Jeopardy appearances and the two Jeopardy records he holds. The way the author writes about him, one year after his first big win, suggests that he is well-known and a subject of awe in the world of Jeopardy fans and contestants: "The one thing I didn’t want was to play ultimate single-game winner Craig in the quarterfinals. His buzzer skills were unbelievable. His knowledge base even more so. Both could keep me from winning or from accruing enough for a wildcard spot." --Orlady (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E - he is only important/well-covered because of his appearances on Jeopardy!. There has been little, if any significant coverage of Craig outside of the Jeopardy! circle. HurricaneFan25 19:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am not part of the Jeapordy circle but came across Roger Craig after reading this article: http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2011/11/16/mind-blown-this-guy-broke-jeopardys-all-time-record-with-an-app/. I think that the fact that he did so well by making a computer program to study is in of itself worthy of keeping this article. 192.5.109.34 (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  "I think that the fact that he did so well by making a computer program to study is in of itself worthy of keeping this article." seems a bit WP:ILIKEIT-ish. HurricaneFan25 20:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am not a Jeopardy guy either. I just wanted to learn more about his history after reading about the programming application he wrote. In general, I hate it when articles get deleted. What's the point? You are just limiting knowledge transfer. There was an article about a fictional Mario Bros. video game I was going to use in a reference to how internet memes evolved, but apparently it was deleted due WP rules. It's absolutely awful to see knowledge destroyed in this way. — 209.183.253.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Please stay on topic regarding the argument presented. Philosophical comments about Wikipedia's deletion policy do not belong in this discussion. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, AfD is all about building a consensus about Wikipedia's deletion policy and philosophical asides are totally appropriate, to my way of thinking... Why was this particular article out of 3.8 million challenged in the first place? Why is this particular article being defended now? It's all about the philosophy of WP and how stringently or loosely amorphous general guidelines like "Biography of a Living Person — 1 event" and the requirement for "multiple, substantial, independently published sources dealing with a topic" are to be applied. These are in contradiction here. Why should one of these trump the other? It's all about one's philosophy of the encyclopedia... Carrite (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Book chapter, 4 or 5 articles. Arguing BLP1E is in bad faith - he was not on Jeopardy once! --Gwern (contribs) 23:37 16 November 2011 (GMT)

* Comment: Actually, no — it is not "bad faith" to argue BLP1E here, that's the reason cited for deletion by the closing administrator a year ago. You can argue it doesn't apply in this case, fine, but don't diss those who disagree. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He's the current ToC champion and a show record-holder, and there is more than enough coverage in mainstream media Here's a Gawker article that came out today: [1] (it is a short article accompanying the now-everywhere-on-the-bet video, but it is unquestionably an article in a significant publication devoted solely to the article's subject). I don't disagree with the nominator that the references aren't amazing, but I think that they (and others) are sufficient. -- Mike (Kicking222) 04:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 16. Snotbot  t • c »  19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant mainstream coverage is sufficient.--Knulclunk (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Jeopardy! contestants per WP:BLP1E; content and redirect are useful and encyclopedic. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Sottolacqua: reference 10 (the one to J! archive) is not a reference to a fansite. Rather, Roger Craig's 7th episode is being used as a primary, self-published source (which clearly satisfies WP:SELFPUB); the J! archive link is merely a courtesy link. No content original to the J! archive is being cited, so the fact that the J! archive is a fansite is irrelevant to this discussion. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, mainstream media attention not just to ToC win but to CS-inspired study method. ABC News coverage 2 3 Gawker article Craig's accomplishment and method even merited mention on the ABC World News with Diane Sawyer broadcast on 2011-11-17 (I have video captured, if anyone wants it). Robert K S (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now added this morning's Good Morning America interview and the Final Jeopardy book by Stephen Baker to the references section. There is no deletion rationale at this point anymore. Robert K S (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (Disclosure: I don't know Roger Craig or his family, but his father is from my home town.) What is most significant is RC's creation of a method of preparation that has already proven successful to other contestants. This could well alter the nature of the game AND it's contestants. Rico402 (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my last comment on this issue:
  • Keep or Userify per Larissa Kelly, Tom Walsh and John Isner. Maybe re-evaluate AfD when someone breaks his single-day record. (Full disclosure: I think Roger Craig is a badass) -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

-- mitchsurp -- (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Do any "jeopardy guys" ever admit to being such? (Disclosure, I don't know Roger Craig or his family or his father's hometown, but one time I told a girl I liked jeopardy.)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Over a year ago I voted for deletion and opined that "Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of Game Show Trivia." Since then, I've come around to the idea that it actually is. WP has dual functions — serious encyclopedia and pop culture compendium — and those of us concerned with maintaining and improving the former shouldn't obsess with trying to crush the latter. Rather: embrace the cruft. Is it verifiable? Is it accurate? Is it something that users will care about? In this case: yes, yes, and yes. This seems to meet General Notability Guidelines as well as the fact he was a show record setter garnered media attention. So, there ya go... Carrite (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there clearly is extensive coverage; reasonable people can disagree on whether it's significant. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2011 (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.