Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Walsh

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 16:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Walsh

As with Brian Weikle above, Tom Walsh lost a great deal of notability when Ken Jennings shattered his records. Currently, I'd say he has limited notability outside of the Jeopardy! world -- but I'm still on the fence. So I figured I'd let the community decide. --OntarioQuizzer 03:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable outside of a game show. Megan1967 09:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Jeopardy! and create a list of champions within the article. Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep. Sounds extremely notable within jeopardy. Did he make the news? Kappa 10:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Go hard or go home. Call Ken Jennings and see if he'll let you have your notability back. --InShaneee 16:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Once notable, always notable in my book. Kappa 02:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Not an Andy Worhol fan? I think notability can often last just 15 mins, and wikipedia should recognise this. --InShaneee 02:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For our purposes, a thing cannot be notable one minute and non-notable the next. Encyclopedic once is encyclopedic forever. Everyking 07:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Inshaneeee. Delete'. Radiant! 10:14, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Is Bob Cousy not notable because he is now second behind John Stockton (as an example of many who are were once 1st but have been eclipsed) He was a trailblazer being the first contenstant who made significant $ after the 5-day limit was removed. Although I don't agree that once notable always notable (though I would say once notable - we should give strong deference to their notability) Trödel|talk 16:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere. Not sure where. Maybe to an article that hasn't been created yet, in which case this article might as well be kept until a new page for champions or records for game shows in general or something is made. -R. fiend 08:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete or Merge and WEAK redirect with either Jeopardy! or a Jeopardy! Champions and Record Holders future breakout. But I concur with InShanee more strongly than with Kappa and Everyking. Trödel|talk's "trailblazer" justification above is the only reason I see for keeping Mr. Walsh (or was that for Mr. Cousy?) anywhere. Even Jeopardy is (and was always) JUST a TV game show, for which I feel the criteria for WP encyclopedicity should be very high. And I'm a fan of the show and a supporter of all kinds of strategy and knowledge games. Keep everything J!-related in one or two articles, with enough sections for everything that the editors find to be sufficiently verifiable, NPOV, outstandingly influential, long-term contributions to the field, and otherwise policy-worthy. Not everything that fans of a particular hobby or performer or institution could possibly want. Jeopardy former recordholders and champions barely clear that line for me enough to go in the parent article, and not enough for their own articles. Barno 23:45, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In 10000 years, when the United States no longer exists, will William Henry Harrison no longer be sufficiently notable for an article? Once encyclopedic, always encyclopedic. dbenbenn | talk 16:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.