Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neal Wanless

:{{la|Neal Wanless}} ([{{fullurl:Neal Wanless|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neal Wanless}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Contested prod. This is article is a case of being notable for one event only and the only sources I can find are the same AP wire story, repeated ad nauseum. TNXMan 17:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or merge if an appropriate location can be found. I think the fact that he bought the ticket in Winner is delightfully interesting, but this is the essence of WP:ONEVENT. I don't see a List of Powerball winners or similar anywhere, but I think a merge there would be appropriate if someone knows of such an article. Cool3 (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a list of lottery winners; a link from the Neal Wanless page goes there. Very few people have won the equivalent of $200 miilion (lottery or otherwise). He was the lone ticket holder; most wins of this magnitude have several or more people claiming together.207.210.134.83 (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This indeed is a ONEEVENT. If this person actually does something with his $232 million he may well become notable in the future, but as of yet he isn't. 18:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passportguy (talk • contribs)
• Merge into the Powerball article.Historicist (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. While I do still think that this is clearly a case of WP:ONEVENT, I've managed to find a fairly large amount of coverage subsequent to the original story on the win. If someone would like to try improving the article, I'd be happy to provide him/her with some of these sources. Cool3 (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'be heard this arguement quite a number of times on here lately. I think it misses the point a bit. The reasoning behinde ONEVEVENT is that there are often people that rise to quick fame just to be forgotten again a couple of weeks or months later. In retrospect, fleeting fame is not very substantial and articles on these people should therefore be avoided. To quote the policy :"if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." So the issue isn't the fact whether or not a person is being covered, it is whether that coverage is and is likely to remain subtantive in the long run. In short : Will anyone remember this person a year from know ? If not, the person probably shouldn't be included. Passportguy (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Certainly I agree, and thus my !vote to delete/merge above. I was merely pointing out that if someone believes that this is more than just fleeting coverage, I can provide him/her with some sources. Cool3 (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep With this amount of money, there will be continuing coverage. I am very reluctant to keep articles where the person hasn't actually done something notable, but there is a point at which exceptions should be made. DGG (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2009 (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.