Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome Vered

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. Tone 22:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Vered

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

Being the former biggest one-day winner on Jeopardy! is a good claim of fame. However, I have not been able to find any sources at all after the fact, except for incidental coverage when Ken Jennings shattered his record. Absolutely no sources found covered anything except for his Jeopardy! win, making this a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Sufficiently mentioned in the list of largest game show winnings. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Except that it makes the claim that he's the first to sweep (whatever that is) Ben Stein. - BalthCat (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have not been able to verify in sources either. Searching for Jerome Vered + WBSM turns up nothing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still asserting more than BLP1E, making it a sourcing issue, not a BLP1E issue, and so not a good candidate for AfD as far as I am concerned. - BalthCat (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I still think the lack of sources is enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know how you're Google-searching, but a Google Books search for Jerome Verod + WBSM turns up a directly verifying source; and the standard search turns up hundreds of hits [1], and a related wikipage, American game show winnings records, has a relevant cited source. You really need to search more carefully. The comment that "Absolutely no sources found covered anything except for his Jeopardy! win" speaks only to the failure of your search methods, not the notability of the subject; it's clearly inaccurate. AFD discussions are messy enough when people stick to accurate comments; when you make clearly incorrect ones, even in good faith, the environment can easily deteriorate quickly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this directly verifying source? I don't see any reliable sources re his WBSM win in your search string. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Google Books search. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it enough? Do you believe the information is false, or simply unverified? (Note that unverified != unverifiable.) Sourcing issues are sourcing issues, not deletion reasons... especially if you don't even disbelieve the information asserted. We'd have to delete half of Wikipedia if we started axing everything without a rock hard source in place. - BalthCat (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The books source is only a two sentence mention. All the other coverage is only incidentals received after his Jeopardy! win, and then even more incidentals after Ken broke his record. Incidental coverage isn't enough, ever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said those sources didn't exist "at all." Can you explain how you came to that (incorrect) conclusion, because without a reasonable explanation it's hard to take your fallback position seriously. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I misread and was searching all over Google News instead of Books. The books source indeed verifies that he was on WBSM, but it doesn't say a hell of a lot else. Do you really think two paltry sentences are enough to base a great deal of an article on? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your comments about Google News were wrong, to, because there's at least one relevant GNsource associating WBSM and Vered. You said there were no sources verifying a specific claim; I pointed out you were wrong, and you argued, irrelevantly, that the source in question wasn't enough to base the entire article on, which was obviously a straw man argument. The point at issue there was whether your BLP1E argument was valid, not general notability. Vered fails WP:ATHLETE, too, but that isn't terribly helpful. Your comments in this AFD, and, from my experience, others, too often tend to reflect inaccurate or inadequate searching, resulting in hasty and inppropriate arguments, and that practice, together with your overheated defensiveness, is somewhat disruptive, and certainly doesn't promote reasonable consensus decisionmaking. When I make a mistake, my first instinct is to step back and try to figure out what I did wrong, not to immediately defend what often shouldn't be defended. Your editing would be more effective if you did that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think there's enough here for an article, though? He was a contestant on two game shows and that's all we know. Also, I don't know why my editing has been so sloppy of late, and I have the hardest time figuring out what I'm doing wrong — it's always the one thing I don't check. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think there is is (so Keep, since I somehow hadn't managed to !vote yet.) There's definitely enough to satisfy WP:RS and WP:V; and he was prominent enough to be a plausible search term. There's nothing wrong with a short article containing only material reflecting notability. Would it really be a significant improvement if the article included his romantic history, a few childhood anecdotes, and his tastes in music, even if they were well-sourced? Sometimes a bare-bones article is better. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, that's all I wanted to get from you, really. I disagree still, but I'll leave this open for consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I adore and cherish Jerome, so I'm going to recuse myself from adding a vote here, but in the past we've generally said that game show contestants not otherwise notable outside of their game show appearances are only notable if they were record-breakers. Jerome qualifies in that way, and perhaps only as an (apparently uncredited, according to IMDb) staff contributor to Win Ben Stein's Money otherwise. I don't think there's any "game show contestant notability" guideline but that may just be an artifact of there being sufficiently few of them for such a class of notability never to have been considered. Even the most outstanding game show contestants are near the bottom rungs of celebrity in that they may be appreciated by only a small class of devotee, people like Charles Van Doren and Ken Jennings being exceptional in that regard. Robert K S (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely one of the more notable game show winners, despite not winning a million dollars or more. His history in the game show world is definitely worthy of mention. I don't think that that we should only have articles on million dollar winners. For example, we have an article on Ogi Ogas, who did NOT win a million dollars on WWTBAM. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 00:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Vered was best American at this year's WQC. [2], everybody ahead of him is a sport quizzing star, Ashman, Bjortomt, Gibson and Bytheway are former world champs, Pattyn is a former Euro champ, Swiggers is a former world runner-up and Euro doubles champ, Kalliovelo was WQC 3rd in 2008. In comparison Ken Jennings finished 9th at the 2007 European Open. They are about the same level. Here is an article about him: [3]German.Knowitall (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure if this is still open or not, but I've added a couple of refs. Zagalejo^^^ 06:05, 17 November 2009 (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.