Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 04:00, 31 January 2022

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. J04n(talk page) 16:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Evelyn Adams (lottery winner)

Evelyn Adams (lottery winner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable lottery winner. Don Cuan (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train 10:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train 10:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• One of the references is a book entitled "Virtually Useless Information" and really that sums up the encyclopedic value of this article. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I was ready to have the article deleted until I did a search in Google on "Evelyn Adams lottery" and found dozens of sources, many of which were added to the article. Many of the sources that include her name are brief mentions, but the two sources from The New York Times are in-depth coverage about her, both from 1986 when she won for the second time (arguably a BLP1E) and in 1993 after she had blown it all. The coverage has continued over the decades, using her example as a two-time lottery winner who lost it all as a cautionary tale. I plan on nominating the expanded article for inclusion in DYK, though the AfD would have to end successfully for inclusion. Alansohn (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete- Violation of WP:BLP as notable for one event only (technically two, but even so). The only in-depth coverage came when she actually won the lottery. Articles after that were "where are they now?" human-interest stories about multiple people. And featuring the article as DYK would just further violate the "presumption in favor of privacy" in BLP.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete winning the lottery alone is not grounds for notability, and there is nothing else here to establish notability on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Reply to non-policy-based vote All you've done is make an assertion that the individual is not notable. I get, you don't like it; it's WP:NOTNOTABLE. No one has argued that winning the lottery is a claim of notability in and of itself. Winning the lottery twice and being the topic of sustained coverage over a period of decades a rather string claim of notability. The fact that you are unable to address the reliable and verifiable sourcing only detracts any credence from your vote. Alansohn (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

As rare as it is, simply winning the lottery twice is not a strong claim to notability. And even though she one twice, winning the lottery is a routine event (hundreds of people win every year), so I still going to call it "notable for one event only". She has not been the subject of significant in-depth coverage since she won the lottery the second time. A few sentences in those "where are they now?" lottery winners stories since are not significant in-depth coverage. This type of coverage actually falls under WP:NOTNEWS. What is the purpose of this article anyway? To embarrass (or possibly shame) a woman who obviously has very poor money management skills and a possible gambling addiction?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E covers *ONE* -- and only *ONE* -- event. She is notable for *TWO* events, having been noted as the first person in the United States to have the distinction, and has received enduring and significant in-depth coverage since her second win. It's refreshing to see that you're appealing to mentions of Misplaced Pages policy, such as WP:NOTNEWS, rather than just arguing that anything you don't like should be deleted, and repeating that argument ad nauseum at forum after forum until you achieve your goal of seeing an article deleted. Unfortunately, WP:NOTNEWS makes mentions of four specific criteria: 1) Original reporting ; 2) News reports; 3) Who's who; and 4) A diary. None of those apply, and if you're calling thus based on a news report, that is described as "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.", which is not what these in-depth article are. The net result is hardly an argument for anything, let alone deletion. Alansohn (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

How is winning the lottery not a routine news event? Every single week I see a story on the local news about someone winning the lottery. She won twice, it made a nice "can you believe that happened?" story for the media and now its over. And as I said before since then there have only been trivial mentions of this woman in what happened to former lottery winner stories. Yes, I know it happened **TWO** times, that's not **ONE**, but **TWO** times, I even said that in my last comment, but from previous experience I know you have trouble with reading. I'm not sure if its a comprehension problem or you just need new glasses (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, see an eye doctor).

However, it was the same event twice, winning the lottery ranks extremely low on the list of events ranked by notability. If we take a look at WP:EVENT & WP:ROUTINE, it clearly falls in line with the other routine events there. "This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories)." (emphasis mine) If winning an award is not notable, I doubt winning the lottery is. (even if you do it twice) Adams winning the lottery twice does not meet the requirements of having a lasting effect or duration of coverage.

Let's try another example here. Let's say someone makes the news twice for committing two separate, but similar crimes (let's say it was murder and there were witnesses so we know who did it). And then this person still has not been arrested and five years later they appear on America's Most Wanted or some similar show. Didn't they get coverage for two separate events? Didn't they also get coverage a few years later? Would they also meet the requirements for an article? Unless their crime was murdering some famous person, I doubt it. It would still be routine.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What an ass -- "from previous experience I know you have trouble with reading" -- but let's try to take your ludicrous arguments at face value. The question is not whether you arbitrarily decide that a person is notable, it's coverage in reliable and verifiable sources, a topic that you have studiously ignored. The coverage about Adams has been anything but routine, as a search for sources required by WP:BEFORE would have shown, had policy been observed in this case. One person killing two people is not an independent event; one person winning the lottery twice, an event described in multiple reliable and verifiable sources as a one on 15 trillion occurrence (even if you disagree with the calculation), is anything but WP:ROUTINE. That's why there's no coverage of Adams winning the lottery the first time, but *LOTS* of coverage of her winning twice in the span of four months. Your example of murderers undermines itself and proves the exact opposite of what you argue.When you write WP:BLP2E and get it approved as policy by consensus, you might have a case. Alansohn (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If WP:BLP2E actually became a policy (instead of an essay), it would support your argument, not mine. Again, I highly recommend that you **READ** things **BEFORE** you post them. The fact that the BLP2E essay is not policy seems to suggest not everyone agrees with such a literal interpretation of BLP1E.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, winning the lottery twice by definition cannot cause a WP:BLP1E issue. Two wins of the lottery = two significant events. Fish+Karate 12:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I have reviewed a Did You Know Nomination for this article. epicgenius (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep won the lottery twice with follow-up coverage years later; properly ref'dDjflem (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per sources found by Alan especially the New York Times sources which is a clear sign of passing GNG, also two wins = two events, clearly. Also on it's own this means nothing but i'm not even in the same continent of this woman and i know her name, for a lottery winner in the 80s to get 36,217 views on here, shows there's interest. GuzzyG (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep This is simple. There is significant coverage of these two events (and their aftermath) in multiple, independent reliable sources. David in DC (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. This is tabloid journalism. There's a long history of people winning lotteries, becoming sports stars, etc, and then squandering their fortunes because they never learned how to manage money. I'll admit it's a stretch to call winning the lottery twice one event, but it kind of is. We don't need this article, and we certainly don't need it on the front page. If you want to call it WP:IAR, I'm OK with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Appears to easily pass WP:GNG based on the current sourcing of the article. She has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" over the course of many years, not just for the lottery wins themselves, but also for how her life went afterward. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Page has been significantly improved since the AfD was created due to Alansohn's edits introducing solid refs to meet GNG. This is not a BLP1E article as she is mentioned in full pieces over at least the span of 7 years as shown in the refs included on the page, then additionally 20+ years later she is still being mentioned. (Though these passing-mention refs wouldn't be appropriate for establishing GNG, they show an interest in the subject decades later, plus GNG is already proven with the refs from 1986 and 1993.) The article also receives tons of hits so there is interest in her still in 2018. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2018 (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.