Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finola Hackett (2nd nomination)

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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-03 07:19Z

Finola Hackett

DELETE --

Not very notable. The notability of National Spelling Bee winners is debatable, but definitely not 2nd place spellers. See ongoing discussion @ Samir Patel under Articles for deletion. Onyx the hero 03:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - references demonstrate coverage in third-party independent sources per WP:BIO, but more than two sources (from one local newspaper) are ideally needed. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added two more references, neither of which is a local paper. A cursory search on LexisNexis reveals more than 20 more sources, many of which are specifically about Hackett. — brighterorange (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Strong Keep per the comments of Brighterorange. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Until there is a consensus about National Spelling Bee contestants, I'd have to say she's not notable. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong keep per the arguments first AFD (please link these when renominating). It received a lot of "strong keep" votes there! 2nd place in a contest of this importance is notable. Passes WP:BIO; she has competed at the "highest level" in the Scripps National, itself a "competitive activit[y] that [is itself] considered notable". (Also she won another smaller national Spelling Bee!) On top of that, the article has multiple non-trivial sources specifically about her, so what is the problem? — brighterorange (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do check out the very similar Samir Patel AFD; another 2nd place Scripps finish with a number of sources. — brighterorange (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not the winner, so no notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with brighterorange that this article was keeper in previous AfD nomination and she has won a national spelling bee and the article has verifiable nontrivial references. Warfieldian 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a contest winner is not a requirement to be notable for Wikipedia purposes. The requirement for notability purposes would be that she has been the subject of multiple, independently written articles from reliable publishers. In this case, the article appears to cite three or four independent articles about the subject, and thus she would be notable (assuming the references check out). Notability is about references and sourcing, not about winning or losing. Dugwiki 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, hey guys, the Vancouver Sun, The Sacramento BEE ARE reliable sources. These sources are independent of the subject. If at all this just is another case showing that Notability(People) is just to inclusive. According to the rules she's in Alf^Photoman 00:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Do we keep the 2nd place finisher in events the Olympics, or only the first? In fact, we have a large category for the many articles.The importance of everything is judged by the standard of its own field. DGG 02:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that this is a bad faith nomination as Samir Patel's, another spelling be contestant, article is nominated for deletion. That page was created by Onyx the hero. This page as survived an AFD already. <3 Clamster 03:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meats notability by having verifiable secondary sources. AntiVan 07:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insanely strong keep Jesus f***ing Christ, do we have to go through this again? Thank heavens most of the people above me realize the notability of this person. First, as Clamster notes, this is almost certainly a bad faith nom. Second, she easily passes WP:BIO not just for the multiple articles from reliable sources that focus (sometimes exclusively) on her, but because she won a well-known national championship twice and came in second in the most well-regarded event of its type in the world. -- Kicking222 15:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.