Deletion of Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant) (2nd nomination)

Comment: to List of Jeopardy! contestants per ; content and redirect are useful and encyclopedic.  '''RJaguar3 &#124
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: 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 ); 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 &#124
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SELFPUB)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFDHOWTO)

Comment: 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, http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/8549795-418/sun-times-reporter-on-return-to-jeopardy-i-didnt-want-to-totally-flame-out.html 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 . 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  who should not be documented in an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ATHLETE||WP:BLP1E)