Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National postcode lottery

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 21:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] National postcode lottery

Non-encyclopedic, and looks like an ad to me. Fbergo 21:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• weak keep, not particularly notable no, and badly written as it stands, but it's genuine [1] and perhaps has a home here if the article is improved. UkPaolo 21:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Aren't these things often used in scams? I'm sure we can undelete it when it becomes notable. / Peter ^Isotalo 03:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Keep. There is some precedent for articles about lotteries on the EnWiki, however they are filled with trivia at best. California Lottery is a gruesome stub, and Florida Lottery is an unencyclopedic list of games offered by the commission. I would argue that the most notable aspect of government-run lotteries is the winners themselves, but even they lack notability by virtue of the fact that there's a new winner almost every single week. I don't think there's a great deal of encyclopedic things to say about lotteries. I propose that the few existing lottery articles be merged into new, more appropriate blanket articles such as List of lotteries in Great Britain or List of lotteries in the United States. If there's anything encyclopedic and verifiable to be said about these individual lotteries, let it be said with a blurb under its entry on the list (good example of concept: List of Star Wars races). I would love to hear more opinions on this matter. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a novel idea although I have doubts about whether it will work, but it is encyclopaedic. David | Talk 08:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but what exactly is encyclopedic about an individual lottery? I'm really asking for your opinion here, as my own thinking would benefit from some outside input. Are not all lotteries essentially the same? Fernando Rizo T/C 08:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The novelty in this one is the way the winner is decided. Individual lotteries are given articles if they are significant eg National Lottery (UK), Euromillions, and most US state lotteries. David | Talk 08:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, fair enough. But is that unique enough for its own article? Couldn't it be covered in a sentence or two in an article such as the one I proposed in my vote above? Fernando Rizo T/C 08:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This is fair enough but as the UK only has two lotteries this would be a very small and unhelpful article. The National Lottery and the National PostCode Lottery work in very different ways and have very different aims, so it makes sense for them to have separate articles. Norbutt2001 | Talk 09:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks for the enlightening argument. I change my vote to keep. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The spread of this type of lottery is actually quite an important innovation. If the lottery succeeds it will have a major effect on the UK National lottery and on the way that lotteries are run in many other countries. It is a significant departure from the scratchcard or match 5 numbers models used to date.

• Delete This is not an official UK lottery. It may be genuine, it may be a 419-class scam. If its genuine, then lets see some press in the national papers and media before an independent article is written. In the UK, Postcode lottery usually refers to the fact that quality of medical service varies by region: the real national postcode lottery is the national health service.

There has been much press and media coverage, however as this is based in the North-East the coverage is pretty much confined to the North-East and tends to appear in local papers (Northern Echo, Evening Chronicle, The Journel, Sunderland Echo, Herald and Post, Shields Gazette, North East Telegraph), Radio (TFM, Metro Radio, Magic 1152, BBC Radio Newcastle) and TV (BBC North East and Cumbria, Tyne Tees TV). So the reasons given above are not really valid. Besides since the last lottery licence was awarded Camelot was stripped of a monopoly to comply with EU regulations and therefore any lottery licenced by the Gaming Board of Great Britian is therefore offical, as of this date there are only two such lotteries, Camalot (Lotto, Thunderball etc..) and the National Postcode Lottery. Given these facts the reason given for delete is weak at best. But if you need press and media coverage please see the following 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Hopefully this should be enougth to keep your fears of a scam at bay.Norbutt2001 | Talk 21:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• it's clearly not a "scam" at any rate... UkPaolo 21:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete—This is an ad for a regional charity lottery that has almost no Web presence and hasn't even given away a prize yet. --Tysto 22:48, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

I do not work for the lottery nor have I any connection with it but I belive that this does have a place here, this type of lottery and its developments are extremly important in the here UK as it is the first challenger to the dominant Camelot lottery. This is of importance to people liveing in the UK, ok so at the moment restricted to the North East.Norbutt2001 | Talk 09:15, 15 August 2005 (BST)

• Keep looks like it has potential. Trollderella 01:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems legit at first glance. Secretlondon 05:41, 18 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.