Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Avila (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Mr.Z-man 04:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Avila

Daniel Avila (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

procedural nomination Article was tagged for WP:PROD deletion despite having previously survived a trip to AFD. PROD-nominator states: "Non-notable - Fails WP:BIO". (version at time of AFD) User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Most of the information here is already found in the article for the show. He's since been surpassed as highest-winning game show contestant and so, doesn't merit a standalone article.--Sethacus 02:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Sethacus. It's enough to have him listed in the other article. The long narrative of the questions he answered is not really notable. Qworty 03:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the above, non-notable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity bio. Keb25 15:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment & request for input Some of the delete commentary above reads more as a 'merge' suggestion, and I agree with that outcome. A more general question about persons who are 'top winners' in game shows ... should these people ever have stand-alone articles? I'm thinking about the distinction between someone who wins an annual competition (such as a golf tournament) vs. someone who is transiently the top achiever in an area (such as Avila or a sports record holder - maybe longest javelin thrower or person with the most homeruns in a season <= that last added as a strawman as I am sure folks would make a distinction between these two sports examples). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Interesting question. We do have standalones for Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter, though I am a little leery about the lack of sourcing on the Rutter. I think we should take a look at whether or not each gained enough notability to satisfy. Jennings, who became a pop culture phenomenon after his Jeopardy performance, certainly did, as did, to a lesser extent, Rutter, who overtook Jennings to become the top winner. His total,though, if I remember, was cumulative, adding his regular performance to his winnings in the Tournament of Champions.

breaking comment continuity I realize after the fact that my comment is reminiscent of arguments based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I do agree with the goal of judging each article on its own merits rather than on the merits of an article class. Thanks for keeping to this goal by advising "look at whether or not each gained enough notability to satisfy." To rephrase slightly my question ... should being a transient Champion be the basis for (permanent) notability on its own. This tends to be a valid criterion of notability for sports, but appears to not be an accepted criterion for "gamers" (looking at the broad swath of games) except perhaps for chess. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

replying here for continuity On its own, I don't believe so, unless there were some notability to it, a la Jennings and Rutter. As far as being the top moneymaker in a game, I don't think so, because anyone can come along at any time and break the record. I was looking at American game show winnings records this morning. If you'll allow me to indulge in OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are 10 people there who have articles. One was a Press Your Luck winner who gained notoriety after it was discovered he gamed the system by memorizing the board. Another is Charles Van Doren. Another is a Tic Tac Dough winner, whose records have almost all been smashed by Jennings. We also have an article on Curtis Warren, a Greed champion who held the top moneymaking record...for 4 days. So, unless it's a notable accomplishment, like a "first"--John Carpenter, the first million-dollar winning game show contestant, springs to mind--then I would say we shouldn't base notability on something like transiency in the fast-paced world of game show. I'm frankly surprised we don't have an article on the first female million-dollar winner. Having said that, the interesting thing is Ken Jennings, with all the publicity surrounding him, wasn't even a first. There was a guy before him who won over 2 million on Jeopardy. With sports and with chess, I would say it's different, because there's a semi-permanency to it. If you win, say, the Master's, that's yours. Your name is in the books as having won that tournament for that year. Same holds true for being a Grandmaster of chess.--Sethacus 16:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article were merged, where to? As I stated previously, the Greed article already has this information. It is possible to redirect to the Greed article,though I doubt many people are going to come looking for Daniel Avila here. I note one of the other top winners on Greed had an article which did not survive Afd. I think reliable sourcing should be the benchmark.--Sethacus 04:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Further comment I apologize. It's Ed Toutant, a Who Wants to be a Millionaire? contestant whose article was deleted.--Sethacus 04:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Needs evidence of recognition in independent sources. Otherwise, a couple of game show wins isn't notable. Ward3001 03:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn Tiptopper 12:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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.