Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Forrest

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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Forrest

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

Although the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Wikipedia:Recentism is factor, as there has been little/no coverage since the initial appearance on a game show. WP:BLP1E can also be applied.

Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following:

"Winning...on a game show does not strike me as meeting the threshold for notability, even if it leads to a couple of additional appearances down the road."
"It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant."
"Winning [$xx,000] or temporarily holding the winnings record do not establish notability."
"Clearly a figure of transient notability."

Bulk of references are links to an unpublished Jeopardy! fansite. Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Forrest's records and style of play exemplified the Jeopardy! champion for a generation. He co-authored a book on the subject. Even as late as 1999, well after his appearances, his name was used as a synonym for the Jeopardy! player par excellence. [1] While I agree that in most instances Jeopardy! players who are not noteworthy for accomplishments outside of the show do not meet notability criteria, Forrest is an exception. So too, clearly, would be Frank Spangenberg and Brad Rutter, contestants whose records and achievements on the show are well-remembered and well-documented in the press. Robert K S (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment–Style of play "known as the 'Forrest Bounce'" is WP:OR. The ref in University of Phoenix Special Edition Series: Financially Focused Quality is a very brief, two-sentence mention about one player's strategy in picking clues. One single mention like this does not prove notability, nor does the strategy hold the clout that the article claims it does. This strategy is not well-documented or employed by other contestants beyond Forrest's appearance on the show. WP:Author does not apply as the subject is not regarded as an important figure; is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, etc. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, "Forrest Bounce" is not OR, any more than "zone defense" is OR. The "Forrest Bounce" was called as much and written about before Wikipedia was around. The statement "This strategy is not well-documented or employed by other contestants beyond Forrest's appearance on the show", however, is OR, and you should be a little embarrassed that you're fabricating statements in order to justify your nomination. Robert K S (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zone defense may/may not be a technique employed by multiple sports franchises, however that article is equally filled with original research and lacks sources documenting its employment, the same argument that can be applied to the "Forrest Bounce". My statement about the "Forrest Bounce" strategy is not original research; Googling key terms returns results back to the Jeopardy Archive (an unpublished fansite), Forrest's article here on WP, and links to various blogs/message boards discussing the strategy. These are not links published in notable, verifiable media. You could reference the strategy as it's mentioned in Bob Harris's book may be an arguable inclusion for notability, but one reference by a secondary contestant in his own book is not notable media coverage of the article subject or the strategy employed. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just Bob's book, it's also Mike Dupée's, and have you checked Jennings's? Not to mention the book by Forrest/Lowenthal? See, the problem is you're making stuff up. Robert K S (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these items are not referenced within the subject's article. As an editor, it is not my responsibility to find these sources. If these are notable references to the article subject (or a strategy that would otherwise make the article subject notable), it is the responsibility of those editors who feel this topic is notable to include those references in the article and to argue for notability. Accusing another editor of "making things up" is clearly not assuming good faith and is also unrelated to this deletion discussion. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sotto, you lost the presumption of good faith with me years ago. You're a deletionist whose editing actions show that you believe that improving the encyclopedia more or less involves whittling it down. And it is not ethical of you to marshal falsities in support of your agenda, which you have done here, regardless of whether all the references you desire have been added to the text of the article. "Forrest Bounce is OR". False. "This strategy is not well-documented or employed by other contestants beyond Forrest's appearance on the show." False. Why not just say that such things appear not to be in evidence in the article, rather than making assertions? Robert K S (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Forrest bounce" is now cited: Bob Harris. Prisoner of Trebekistan. p. 85 (3 paragraphs about Forrest bounce; subsequent pages provide humorous anecdote about Forrest applying the technique to his book of study material to a resigned Harris). RJaguar3 | u | t 21:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: "Bulk of references are links to an unpublished Jeopardy! fansite.": references are to the episodes themselves, which qualify under WP:SELFPUB as information on how Forrest did on those episodes (although we must be careful to avoid WP:OR); the J-Archive link is merely a courtesy link. I just got rid of the "references" not meeting that criterion. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm getting tired of copying and pasting. Jeopardy seems to have a fan following sort of like sports, which is probably why game show trivia pages get made for its champions. Nevertheless, the fact is that it is NOT a sport. Create a page called List of Jeopardy! money winners and I've got no beef, but pages for a multitude of successful players is beyond reason, in my opinion. Top champ? Sure. That Jennings dude? He crossed over into popular culture, no problem with him either. Other than that, this is trivia and should go away, in my opinion. —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.

Most of human history is "trivia" to most people. There are no "facts" at issue here, merely notability. And multiple, independently published sources have been produced here in this discussion attesting to Forrest's notability as a player and as the creator of the eponymous "bounce". 271828182 (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted in the recent AfD discussion about David Madden, we should never delete an article that has appeared as a "Do You Know" on the Main page. Forrest is also notable for being an author and Congressional candidate. --Punchi (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:POLITICIAN, Forrest was merely a candidate in the primary election for the House seat and not a "politician who held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" and was not a "major local political figure who received significant press coverage." WP:POLITICIAN also states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." The DYK section merely gives publicity articles that are new or had been recently expanded and is a way to "give thanks" to editors who are doing the bulk of work. Appearing in the DYK is not criteria that also equates to notability, and the notability discussion is unrelated to the article's status or visibility here on WP. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Although I think most of the sources on this article do not qualify as WP:RS under WP:SELFPUB as the article appears to rely on them rather heavily, the man did do some extraordinary things for which he appears to meet WP:GNG. Moreso than other contestants might. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge multiple contestants who have no other coverage into a list article, such as List of notable Jeopardy! contestants. No reason for each person to have his or her own article, based on my brief review of the evidence, but these appear to have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Thus, if merged into a list, there's a clear potential for an FLC to come out of this. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added two book references documenting Forrest's notability. 271828182 (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has received ongoing coverage in multiple books and newspapers from the 1980s to the 2000s. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He innovated a strategy which is still employed by players 25 years later. To me this meets "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." per WP:ANYBIO. He has been written about, in depth, in a book, by at least one independent biographer. Trivia games, and Jeopardy! in particular, may not be everybody's cup of tea, but they are an area of interest for a lot of people. Nick Number (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2010 (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.