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, non-notable. Prodego ^talk 17:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finola Hackett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

procedural nomination Found in the WP:PROD workstream despite having been to AFD twice before. The statement from the PROD-nominator reads: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. This event is covered. The person need not be. There is relevant info on 79th Scripps National Spelling Bee 2006" User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 07:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. JJL 14:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even the spelling bee winners should be deleted in my opinion. Runners up and honourable mentions definitely aren't encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The winner would be notable as in any other national competition, but not the others. DGG (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But she was the winner- of the Canadian national bee- twice. No offense, but you clearly didn't even read the article. -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite aware of it, and should have said that I didnt consider that a significant competition, national level or not.DGG (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Disgustingly strong keep God, how many times have I had to make this argument before? First of all, did anybody above read the article? Hackett is the two-time national champion in her competition before finishing second in America's competition. To get that far three times, she had to defeat thousands (and, really, millions) of competitors. In the case of the National Spelling Bee, she was the runner-up in the longest-running and most well-regarded competition of its kind, which was also broadcast in primetime on network television. Obviously, the media coverage is there, as multiple articles about the subject from reliable sources are present in the article. I'm not sure what everyone's problem here is, but it's insane to think that there's a chance this will be deleted. How can it be claimed that Hackett is non-notable when she's twice won a well-known national contest and has an article that meets WP:V? -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject is notable per the terms of WP:Notability; content is verifiable, neutral and in all other respects compliant with policy. The deletes so far all seem to be snap judgements, not rationales.--Father Goose 19:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment transient, ephemeral coverage of a runner-up in the Scripps competition who won the newer of Canada's two major spelling bees ("held annually in Canada since 2005"). The Canadian bee is affiliated with, and appears to serve as a 'feeder' for, the Scripps National Spelling Bee (Canspell: 41 competitors; Scripps: 286 cmpetitors), allowing its winners to compete at Scripps--and the past winners have all gotten less-than-top placements at Scripps. I would suggest that Soohyun Park is also of questionable notability. JJL 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, you should read the article about the older Canadian bee, which states that it almost exclusively caters to Otarians. It is hardly a national bee. -- Mike (Kicking222) 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These claims that the Canadian bee is unimportant, or that Finola Hackett is unimportant as well ("delete, nn") are proclaimations, not rationales, and as such carry no weight. Multiple news organizations wrote stories specifically about her, which is "more than trivial" and objectively establishes her notability.--Father Goose 20:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Atrian 01:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kicking222. The Spelling Bee is a well-publicized contest and finishing in second place appears to have won her a fair amount of attention. Winning the Canadian contest (twice) only adds to the notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep winning the Spelling Bee twice is notable. Their is a reason why this article survived the first 2 afd's. Noor Aalam 15:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just because she was mentioned in a few newspaper articles doesn't confer notability. Her participation is adequately covered on the spelling bee article. Bombycil 16:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She was the subject of those newspaper articles. Big distinction.--Father Goose 17:00, 8 November 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.