Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Wilson (lottery winner)


 * 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 per WP:BLP1E or in this case 2E. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Valerie Wilson (lottery winner)
Valerie Wilson (lottery winner) is far from a household name. Valerie Plume (nee Wilson) is far better known. Loveyourcar (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this article should not be deleted.
 * First of all, there is no requirement that a person be a "household name" to have a Wikipedia article. If that was the case, and, assuming you could actually find a way to establish which persons actually were "household names", then probably 97% of the bio articles would have to be deleted. Ridiculous argument.
 * Secondly, the fact that this woman shares her name with Valerie Plame (not Plume) actually adds to the rationale for allowing this article to exist. The Plame affair was actually very much in the headlines at the time of the deli worker's amazing win, and Valerie Wilson Plame has several times changed her mind as to which name she wishes to use.  Someone doing a search for Valerie Wilson might well come up with the deli worker (her story was on CNN, the New York Times, the wire services, etc.), and we want to make clear who is who.

Additionally, it needs to be recognized that there is, in all likelihood, a hidden agenda at play here. I am quite certain that User:Loveyourcar is the same editor who has attempted countless times to expunge information from this article that he does not approve of. Now he has done this always before as an anon using a plethora of IPs, but it is him. He has a long association with the New York Lottery, apparently, and has a longstanding grudge towards that Lottery because it awards their jackpots in a twenty-year annuity instead of as a lump sum. He has tried on multiple occasions to expunge the use of the words "jackpot" and "million dollar prize" from this article, because he does not believe that it is honest of the New York Lottery to describe its prizes in this manner. Since myself and the few other editors who have looked at this article have disagreed with him, he periodically comes back and makes another stab at getting rid of this. On one occasion, despite other editors having previously disagreed with his attempt to wipe out this woman from Wikipedia, he just eliminated her article by turning it into a redirect.

Look, I'll readily acknowledge that WP:N is an issue here. My personal feeling is that this person is interesting enough to warrant this entry, but I can respect and abide by the feelings of others on this matter. But I just want it recognized that WP:N is not the motive of this editor. Heck, I was cool with just a dab page--it was another editor who created this page. But even with just a dab page entry (which I think absolutely must exist, at a minimum), this guy just kept sabotaging it, eliminating the verbiage that violated his personal POV, but which reflected standard usage. So there you are. Unschool (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It can be argued whether or not she actually won a "million dollars" each time, since both prizes were annuitized. Of course, if somebody wins a "million dollars" in a Canadian lottery, it is not only lump sum, but tax-free. Many people do not realize US lottery prizes are "different" than elsewhere. However, the "true" definition of "jackpot" is a prize that INCREASES in VALUE until it is won (such as in Mega Millions, Powerball, or Hot Lotto). It is more correct to say she won the "top prize" both times. If she's that "lucky", does she play Mega Millions, which not only has a starting jackpot of $12 million, but also a cash option? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.179.123.198 (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See what I mean? His beef is not with the notability of this subject or lack thereof.  He is on a campaign to eliminate verbiage from articles on the New York Lottery which describe any of their prizes in a way that violates his sense of propriety.  Even if he's correct (which other editors do not think), the way to address the issue is not to delete the article that causes the offense.  I move for


 *  Speedy keep . Unschool (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. «  Diligent Terrier    [talk]   14:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Unschool, I think the nominator was merely suggesting that the article should be renamed. «  Diligent Terrier    [talk]   15:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a near WP:BLP1E.  There are two events, winning the lottery, but they are both the same.  JBsupreme (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notable only for winning the lottery. Happens all the time. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable enough. «  Diligent Terrier    [talk]   00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. First of all, people winning the lottery happens all the time, but people winning a million dollars twice does not (Please, someone introduce me to some such person).  Nonetheless, as I said earlier, I readily acknowledge that there are WP:N issues here; I would not have created this article in the first place.  And now, after reading WP:BLP1E, (which I had never read before, but do not find surprising), I have to agree.  In fact, it's not a near WP:BLP1E, it is one, since what notability is extant here is from one matter:  Being a two time lottery winner.  So anyway, the editors voting for delete (with the exception of the nominator) are all persons from whom I have no reason to doubt their good faith, that this article should be deleted for notability reasons, and I can concur in this judgement.  My only expectation would be to still retain the listing of this person in the current dab page, since both she and Valerie Plame Wilson entered the public consciousness (albeit at highly different levels) contemporaneously. Unschool (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: Wouldn't it have been proper, in listing this article for deletion, for the creator of this article to have been notified? How does that work? Unschool (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I think that this would work be more likely to be kept if it was part of an article about the New York Lottery, a link that currently redirects to a general article about Lotteries in the United States. Keep, because she does meet the notability standards, and the overused "single event" argument won't work in this instance.  In answer to your question, Unschool, there's no provision for sending a special notice to the creator of an article unless it's recently been put up (most nominations are responses to new articles, although you sometimes get the type where someone has been going the extra mile to find something).  Those persons who add to an article are no less important than the person who happened to be the creator of the article.  Nor is there anything to stop you from notifying Ypetrachenko or any of the other persons on the list, although an administrator can take signs of such calling into account.  It's not "punishable", but it's one of many factors in weighing an argument.  Consider making this part of information about the NY lottery, rather than a particular person who won that lottery (twice) Mandsford (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete Winning a lottery makes you rich, but not notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ecoleetage, you fail to address the point. No one has suggested that winning a lottery makes one notable. Unschool (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Or, put another way, winning two lottery prizes of one million dollars apiece, on two separate occasions, would make one notable, while winning "a" lottery once would not. Mandsford (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Not to be anti-semantic, but winning "a" lottery or winning "a" lottery on two separate occasions does not make one notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Lotteries in the United States. This could easily make an interesting fact at that article. By herself I don't think Valerie Wilson is notable.Nrswanson (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ILIKEIT.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How does that even apply here Jerry?Nrswanson (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. I think this article is interesting enough to merit an exception to the normal criterion for inclusion.  It is debatable whether this article meets that criterion, but I am saying the article should be kept because winning a lottery twice is about as likely to happen as winning the lottery I don't know what.  So my !vote was a blatant act of IAR, as you can tell by looking at my edit summary.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 01:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't the relevent information just be kept in another article?Nrswanson (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of things could be done. I mean, look at the international space station.  But that does not mean that they should be done.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 02:30, 15 August 2008 (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.