| Revision as of 19:58, 20 February 2018 editAlansohn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers504,567 edits reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:42, 20 February 2018 edit undoRusf10 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,121 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| *'''Delete''' winning the lottery alone is not grounds for notability, and there is nothing else here to establish notability on.] (]) 19:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' winning the lottery alone is not grounds for notability, and there is nothing else here to establish notability on.] (]) 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 19:58, 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 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 ]. 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?--] (]) 21:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:42, 20 February 2018
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:NOTENWS. 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)