Talk:Connecticut Lottery

Great purge

The article has been tagged as uncited for a year. I've purged all of the content because of that. Please do not add in old content without citations, feel free to ask any questions you may have here, I'm happy to assist you. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've re-added basic descriptions of the games offered, because the article is largely useless without it. These are basic facts easily verified by visiting the already-linked CT Lottery website. I made sure to remove the atrocious amount of trivia that had previously appeared, but now the article gives a more complete picture of the CT Lottery, IMO. oknazevad (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. It's been tagged as single source for a year... and re-expanding the article by 6x the size without any new citations just doesn't work. I mean, sure, it's only 1/3rd the size it used to be on the 19th, but half of the still-purged content consists of "payout tables". I can see a LITTLE expansion without attribution, but this basically adds back "the meat" without any sources. And it's a one, self-published sourced article... it can be proded for deletion due to lack of notability at any time. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot see how a basic description of the games offered by the CT Lottery can be considered non-notable, or that sourcing it to anything other than the horse's mouth, as it were, is appropriate. That's purely lacking in common sense. There's no concerns of verifiability here; it's simply a basic list. And this article would easily survive a AFD; things that are non-notable don't have their results published daily in dozens of newspapers. I'll make improvements, but there's no reason to strip the article of all content. Especially when the reversion reintroduces irrelevant links and additional trivia, and generally leaves the article in a poor, barely readable state. oknazevad (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Most importantly: I'm not done! Maybe I should have slapped an inuse template on the page, but I wasn't intending that to be the end of my work. oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

And, despite 3 different people "working" on this page, none of them have seen fit to add any citations. This is the re-addition of unsourced content. You may work in a sandbox (or, indeed, offline with MS Word like I do...). So Im reverting the article again. What is lacking in common sense is the idea that this article is somehow immune to the requirement of verifiabilty. It would almost certainly not survive AdD in its current state. Remember, uncited content may be removed at any time. I could just as well have reduced it to "Connecticut has a lottery system featuring both "pick" tickets and scratch games.". Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverting while there's an under construction tag on it is unacceptable. And there's no verification issue here. There's no requirement that all sources be inline citations. The external link to the CT Lottery website is a reliable source for verification. Yes, there's some trivial details, but to destroy an article while people are actively working on it is disruptive editing. Please don't do it again. oknazevad (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Under construction means adding content. This is the re-re-addition of PAST deleted content, without any new validation. Thus, it is not under contruction. I welcome ALL additions you make which are supportable. ONE self-published cite is not sufficent for an article. I've now trimmed the article down to the actual stub it is, and given it its first in-line citation. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No, under construction means I was busy in real life and am not your little lap dog to jump when you say. And self-published sources is about a marginal views being pushed in a marginal book. Not about the website of a government agency.

Your arrogant behavior is unacceptable. Intentionally stubbing a page when there's already verifiable facts on the page is foolish and stupid. Stop being this. oknazevad (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

...If you're busy in real life, that's not my concern. I don't care who you are, who you think you are, etc. That you don't think the rules apply to you or "your" article is funny though.

Thanks for the insults, but since it finally got you to add citations to the article, I'd say it worked. Keep up the good work! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Single source

As of this entry, 7 of the 10 citations in the article come from Ctlottery.org itself. Per WP:SPIP, this is not acceptable to establish notability. It then has two others from Powerball.com, which merely mention that the Connecticut Lottery also offers the game. I have therefore added the Onesource tag to the top of the article, in the hope that other editors will add cited content. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The notability of state lotteries is not a question. Every state lottery has an article and none have ever been deleted through AfD. And while there has been issues with copy-and-paste copyvios with overly promotional tone, the use of the CT Lottery website here is simply establishing the facts of what games are offered and how they work. That is a legitimate and acceptable use of first-party sources. There is no need for an overly strict reading of a guideline (which are not rules!). oknazevad (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Oknazevad. Remember, "past performance is not indicitive of future results". However, I'm not saying that those citations need to go, nor that the article should be deleted. My point is that this article really, really needs more citations from third party sources. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)