- 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. Kimchi.sg 16:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Claims subject is a lottery winner, and that might be true -- but the article is completely uncited. There's about 18 hits for "Andrew Scanlon" + lotto, [1], and about 21 for "Andrew Scanlon" +lottery [2]. I don't think winning the lotto (even together with philanthropy and youth) are notable enough. Throw in unverifiaiblity and you don't have a good subject for an article. Mikeblas 19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. While the odds of a specific person winning the lottery are extremely poor, there is no shortage of lottery winners. There are several new ones on a weekly basis in all the places that have lotteries. As a result, winning a lottery does not impart any sort of notability absent any other independent factors, including those at WP:BIO. Agent 86 19:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Yeah, the only way people become notable under these circumstances with BIO is if they are involved in noteworthy events. As Agent 86 says, there's no shortage of new lottery winners, so it's not an event for anyone but the winner.--Chaser T 19:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. This AfD was blanked by User:Pretronas -- Mikeblas 18:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is superb and helps poor people by giving them hope you <personal attack/incivility removed>
- 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.