Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gigi Mon Mathew
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Sandstein (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Gigi Mon Mathew
References include only three links, which all contain almost the exact same text. There's not wide enough coverage on this person either. A Google Search comes up with only those articles and some other links linking back to Wikipedia mirrors. I've tried to get more sources for verification, but have been unable to find any. vi5in[talk] 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Similar to Vivin (talk · contribs), I was also unable to find significant coverage in other WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see any significant notability here. WP:BLP1E comes to mind. Powers T 21:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - It is clearly bad faith nomination by User:Vivin. The reprisal initiated when the moment I reverted his pov pushing on Nair article. The details are here. Ok coming to the point, I’d already added my rationale removing prod template added by the same user at articles talk page. Please note that notability is judged by coverage in reliable sources per WP:N and WP:RS. In this case, three main references from Middle East’s reputable sources such as tradearabia.com & albawaba.com etc. Apart from these, it was published by local news papers such as Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhoomy etc. The news was an item by a TV channel that during its Gulf news special telecast program. Also note that we have dozens of Wikipedia article created for Lottery winners. We have indeed a Category:Lottery_winners for that also. Many of these winners don’t have any prior notability at all. They are all notable because of they got bagged a huge amount of jackpot. If User:Vivin’s rationale is reasonable, all these articles also should be fleshed-out. Another reason to keep is that it is one the rarest news in its nature, as it is the biggest prize ever offered in the UAE by a publicly owned nationalized bank on promotion of their credit cards. A first and last promotion and an unusual incident in its nature. Therefore, we have plenty of strong reasons to keep it. The rationale provided by the nominator (User:Vivin) is that the References include only three links, which all contain almost the exact same text. There's not wide enough coverage on this person either. He is a lottery winner and he is notable only through this rarest contest therefore what else news you need about him? The article doesn’t have any original research as all materials written with the support of available references per WP:TRUTH. It is a real TRUTH whether you believe it or not and no matter whether you like him or not.Thanks. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, winning a contest, lottery, etc. does not establish notability. WP:BLP1E. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Then what about we have the Category:Lottery_winners. These all articles should be tagged to AFD as well. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to keep anything; also, if any of those is in Wikipedia solely for reason of having won a lottery, unless they otherwise have a broader claim to notability, their articles should be deleted too per WP:BLP1E. Thanks for the tip, I am going to have a look through those articles and see if any should be taken to AFD. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is not solely for reason of having won a lottery. It is because of its contest nature and biggest prize ever offered in the UAE by a publicly owned nationalized bank on promotion of their credit cards. Probably the first such type of contest in the world. . Your comment on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I am much aware of that full page and I used to quote it often. That is the reason why I called user:Vivin as a non-notableguru per WP:JNN. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- By my math, he won less than a million dollars. The fact that the contest was the "biggest prize ever offered in the UAE by a publicly owned nationalized bank on promotion of their credit cards" is an awful lot of qualifications to achieve the "biggest prize" description. If it was the biggest prize ever in the UAE, period, that might be something, but people win <US$1 million prizes relatively routinely. Every such win is the "biggest" if you add enough qualifiers to it, but that doesn't make them notable. Powers T 14:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keeping in mind that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. The math you’d given may have changed by this time as the value of the winning amount also would have changed (Note that the contest held in 2002 per references). It is not an issue that whether he won less than a million dollars or 100 million dollar as we don't have any particular guidelines about it (?) (WP:IAR). Tell me why the major local and Gulf news papers had given importance on this incident. Why did they publish it? Because of its importance, the rarest contest style and biggest amount of its own. I am still echoing my words that the biggest prize ever offered in the UAE by a publicly owned nationalized bank on promotion of their credit cards is not an awful qualification. It is a fact and truth, it’s an information a real truth. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing the truth of it, I'm saying that when you have to add that many qualifiers to make something "the biggest", it really isn't "the biggest". It's like saying we need an article on "the tallest man in New York State without a glandular problem". Powers T 12:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- And by the way, the sources currently in the article are of questionable value for showing notability. They all appear to be press releases, or at least heavily based on a press release. Look at the similarities among them -- there is no way the three of them were all produced independently. Powers T 12:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Because since the material and contest incident was in a stub sort of stuff, the three different materials look almost same. It is not press release. It is news published by majour Arabian onlines and printed papers. It also published by local (Malayalam) news papers in Kerala too. Why? Because of its rarest contest style and first of its kind in the world. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, your argument on tallest man in the newyork state, an article shouldn’t be created. But if he is the tallest man in the world, an article definitely be crated. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Because since the material and contest incident was in a stub sort of stuff, the three different materials look almost same. It is not press release. It is news published by majour Arabian onlines and printed papers. It also published by local (Malayalam) news papers in Kerala too. Why? Because of its rarest contest style and first of its kind in the world. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keeping in mind that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. The math you’d given may have changed by this time as the value of the winning amount also would have changed (Note that the contest held in 2002 per references). It is not an issue that whether he won less than a million dollars or 100 million dollar as we don't have any particular guidelines about it (?) (WP:IAR). Tell me why the major local and Gulf news papers had given importance on this incident. Why did they publish it? Because of its importance, the rarest contest style and biggest amount of its own. I am still echoing my words that the biggest prize ever offered in the UAE by a publicly owned nationalized bank on promotion of their credit cards is not an awful qualification. It is a fact and truth, it’s an information a real truth. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- By my math, he won less than a million dollars. The fact that the contest was the "biggest prize ever offered in the UAE by a publicly owned nationalized bank on promotion of their credit cards" is an awful lot of qualifications to achieve the "biggest prize" description. If it was the biggest prize ever in the UAE, period, that might be something, but people win <US$1 million prizes relatively routinely. Every such win is the "biggest" if you add enough qualifiers to it, but that doesn't make them notable. Powers T 14:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is not solely for reason of having won a lottery. It is because of its contest nature and biggest prize ever offered in the UAE by a publicly owned nationalized bank on promotion of their credit cards. Probably the first such type of contest in the world. . Your comment on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I am much aware of that full page and I used to quote it often. That is the reason why I called user:Vivin as a non-notableguru per WP:JNN. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to keep anything; also, if any of those is in Wikipedia solely for reason of having won a lottery, unless they otherwise have a broader claim to notability, their articles should be deleted too per WP:BLP1E. Thanks for the tip, I am going to have a look through those articles and see if any should be taken to AFD. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete pretty much a WP:CSD#A7 candidate, in fact. Absolutely no evidence that this person will be the subject of any independent biographical sources going forward. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 30 April 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.
