Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katharine Close


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 10:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Katharine Close
No notability besides winning the spelling bee. not all the winners have articles. See Articles_for_deletion/Rageshree_Ramachandran Zalgt 17:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If the article were to contain nothing notable, then her name would be a redirection to Scripps National Spelling Bee, which provides a list of every winner, their winning word, year, sponsor, and hometown. &mdash; † Webdinger BLAH 23:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Other winners like Rebecca Sealfon have pages, and this article has good links to the winning words and what they mean. Readers are naturally going to look up her name beyond news articles and she deserves having the honor of her own article after winning the Bee. Nate 20:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sealfon seems to have an article due to her South park character. Bwithh 22:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * She was also only one of the most visible winners of the Bee ever, and helped push the home-schooling movement to the forefront because of her win. She's also regularly referenced in any piece about the Bee, there's alot more to her than having a one-note South Park character. Nate 07:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Obviously notable.  There's unfortunately something missing in WP:BIO regarding non-sport competition, but she won the damn thing, how is that not notable?  Besides, the Spelling Bee is also newsworthy, and she qualifies there, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weakest possible keep Notwithstanding WP:NBD, the Rageshree Ramachandran discussion Zalgt adduces would seem to militate in favor of deletion, and the arguments made there are compelling. Nevertheless, I am inclined to think that, applying the sportsperson criterion of WP:BIO, the subject is notable.  The arguments of the many anons that the article ought to be kept because it's likely that many will search for Close in the wake of her victory not only fail to assert that the subject is notable and encyclopedic but also, in view of their insistence the temporal propriety of our having an article, seem to evince that Close will not be perceived as notable in the future and seem not to comport with WP:NOT, viz., that Wikipedia is not a news service (cf., Wikinews).  I think this to be a very close call; if Close is notable only per the sportsperson criterion of WP:BIO, then so too would be several United States Chess Federation junior/amateur champions.  For me, though, the decisive factor is the particular role of the spelling bee in the American media; Close has been sufficiently well-publicized as to merit keep (see, e.g., Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (second nomination).  Joe 22:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. She's certainly more deserving of an article than Yamaoka. Fan1967 22:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, she's a notable figure. --MZMcBride 23:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The Katharine Close article contains more information than can be found on the Scripps National Spelling Bee article. Since there is nowhere else for such information to be found, the article should be kept. If the article were merely to say, "Katharine Close won the national spelling bee in 2006," then I would completely understand and vote delete. But that's not the case at all with this article. &mdash; † Webdinger BLAH 23:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please the figure is notable Yuckfoo 23:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BIO "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person...". --Rob 02:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BIO, as mentioned by Rob. It is a national televised competition, and she is notable at least by popular culture.--El aprendelenguas 02:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to winning the Bee, she is a main subject of the book American Bee: The National Spelling Bee and the Culture of Word Nerds . Being the subject of a book is not sufficient reason to keep an article, but this is a notable new book about the history and culture of spelling bees and adds to Close's recognition.  In any case, winners of the Bee are notable.  Finally, the argument that not all winners have articles and she is notable for only one thing is absurd.  The other winners also deserve articles and many biogrphical entries in Wikipedia describe people who are notable for achieving only one thing. Crunch 02:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. A jewel of an article on this national champion. --JJay 02:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per additional information provided by User:Crunch, and the fact that her win was on a broadcast network (as opposed to cable). This should not be established as a precedent to have articles about all past national spelling bee champions. --Metropolitan90 04:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't believe that this even got nominated. With the Wiki doomed to have an article on every secondary school, one can hardly argue that the winners of the national spelling bee are of less notability. Caerwine Caerwhine  05:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Pure insanity to even suggest this for deletion.  Take the stupid deletion tag off.  The article is relevant, factual, notable, unique, and has potential to grow larger.69.180.181.16
 * Merge and redirect to Scripps National Spelling Bee. — Gulliver ✉  09:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, utterly and completely nonnotable. I can spell Ursprache too. Angr (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this page. This girl deserves to have a page to herself. She should be and inspiration to everyone!
 * Keep Having this 80-year-old abecedarian competition televised on ESPN for a dozen years and now primetime ABC validates this event albeit endorsing the perverse compulsiveness imposed on these young competitors (and fostering the peculiar spectacle of adult pundits watching puerile antics produced by naive nervousness). Ms. Close, a five-year(!) competitor obviously worked long and hard for this victory and deserves all of the accolades she has received, including the posterity, such as it is, of a Wikipedia entry. --John 20:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete or Redirect Not notable enough. Working hard at memorizing dictionaries and winning at a spelling bee does not mean you deserve a wikipedia article. Bwithh 22:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you can be so disregarding of Close's efforts. I was an active participant of spelling bees until this year, and you will not believe how much stress these competitors have and how much nerve they have to even participate in the national spelling bee. Close worked for five years to get to where she is now, shouldn't that count for at least a Wikipedia article? Please read WP:BIO. &mdash; † Webdinger BLAH 04:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I can spell ursprache. I even figured out what it meant. I didn't win the Scripps National Spelling Bee. She did. She's notable. Alansohn 05:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Kerry Close is a member of my school and of my classes, and if you knew how much time she put in to studying for the spelling bee, you would know how hard it is to compete. She studys everyday for this one event, and her winning is a great accomplishment. Not only is she the first girl to win since 1999 but she is also the first person ever to win from New Jersey
 * Keep On the premise that the article be expanded from its current stub, although this may be difficult given the subject matter. Vernon 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So how can we tell whether young Katharine's 15 minutes are up already or does she have some left in the distant future? Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongest feasible keep After the Rebecca Sealfon vote, where (despite being a huge fan of Sealfon) I only voted "weak keep," I've adopted my official stance on articles for National Spelling Bee winners. My stance is that every one deserve his/her own article. For spelling, the bee is the biggest event in the world; there might be a bit less fanfare (and a lot less prize money), but in this sense, the event is absolutely equal to winning the main event of the World Series of Poker- so long as they're of a certain age, absolutely anyone can enter, have a chance to win, and be known as a champion of said event for the rest of their lifetime. As far as I'm concerned, if there's ever an AfD discussion on another Nat'l Spelling Bee winner, my vote is already sealed. -- Kicking222 03:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep-per above-Hornandsoccer 21:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Do not keep. Gamaliel 02:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned and unregistered votes/comments

 * This page should not be deleted. Winning the Scripps Spelling Bee is a significant accomplishment. The subject is a newsworthy individual and should not be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.134.27.62 (talk • contribs).
 * This page should not be deleted. You don't need multiple levels of notability to be considered for Wikipedia.  If someone hears the name Katharine Close, they should be able to look her up.  To not have a significant entry like a National Spelling Bee champion would undermine Wikipedia as an information source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.42.51.27 (talk • contribs).
 * I concur. She is important enough to have an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.117.14 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep. The article is neutral and factual.  The acheivement is notable (and nationally discussed, at least for a day).  Under what circumstances would deletion be appropriate.  This kind of timely info is precisely the major benefit of this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.253.60.5 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep I just went to the Scripps page specifically to see if information had been added about this year's winner. It was good to be able to read more and have links to specific articles about the winner


 * Keep the article, please. Just because the other winners haven't received articles, it doesn't mean that her article should be removed.

KEEP IT!! Are you crazy?? All the other winners have articles. Why shouldn't she!!!

Fixed some comment deletions. At least my comment was removed, please don't delete the talks.15:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Keep Although not all other winners have pages, there are a few that do because they are a little more significant than the others. For instance, one winner is now a ########## for the Bee, so he has one. She is significant because she won the first primetime spelling bee.

Keep it. The Bee is now prime-time, big-time, with books and movies. The winner is a culturally significant person.


 * 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.