Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nupur Lala


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nupur Lala
Although some spelling bee winners deserve a page for various reasons, Nupur Lala doesn't really seem to need one. She is on the Spellbound page already, so a seperate article about her seems redundant. Her link in the Scripps National Spelling Bee page could be redirected to Spellbound (documentary) Clamster5 03:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep - I don't know what policy should guide this, but I think that the winner of the spelling bee featured in Spellbound probably deserves her own separate article, especially if it is expanded with more of a biography (if references exist). At very least should be redirected InvictaHOG 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Spelling bee winners should be kept and also she has featured in the documentary. I just don't think this article can be expanded. --Ageo020 04:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Doczilla 08:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible keep I've argued this before and I'll argue it again: Anybody who wins the National Spelling Bee- which inherently involves beating many millions of other people and competing on national television- deserves their own WP article. Even if there is no other information about the winner, they at least deserve a stub. National Spelling Bee winners are, at the very least, as notable as Go players, or World Series of Poker champions (and certainly poker players who have never even won a WSOP bracelet, and there are hundreds of players on WP who never have, including my favorite poker player), or reality show contestants (many of whom do not have WP articles, but some of whom do). So there it is- if you can win a highly-publicized, televised competition (with almost a century's worth of history) over millions of other people, you deserve your own article. -- Kicking222 11:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional comment The nominator has been very critical of spelling bee articles in the past, including vandalizing them; see what is written by/about him in this previous AfD. -- Kicking222 11:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm going to count her as an athelete (sketchy, but work with me here) and thus judge that she's won a championship at the highest level of competition in her field - which takes her past WP:BIO, which is good enough WilyD 12:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Winning a large-scale competition publicized on mass-audience TV *and* being featured in a well-known documentary more than satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements. Crystallina 15:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Spellbound (documentary). You can argue that she is notable per WilyD's rationale, but this is never going to be more than a stub, and there is more information on her in Spellbound (documentary) than there is here. If she climbs hops up Everest naked on a pogo stick or trains fish to speak then she might need her own article, but not now. Yomangani talk 16:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if she'll never be more than a short article (and she can definitely be more than a stub), that's not really the point. She's notable entirely outside of the Spellbound documentary, so it's an inappropriate merge target WilyD 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I might agree with you if the article on Spellbound didn't already have more information on her than her article does. Merging is appropriate when two articles have a substantial overlap (if for nothing more than maintenance). Although having looked at the Spellbound article a redirect will do, as there is nothing to merge. Yomangani talk 21:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * She's has notability outside of spellbound, so it's not an appropriate merge target. More appropriate is to merge the relevent section of Spellbound into here.  If Joe DiMaggio had better coverage under the Coffee article than his own article, it'd still be inappropriate to merge hi,. even if he is Joltin' Joe, hawking a cup o' joe. Same here. WilyD 01:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll agree to disagree - I think since WP isn't a paper encyclopedia it makes little difference where her information is kept, but it would unbalance the Spellbound article to pull her bio out of there. Anyway, neither of us is saying "Delete" so it's not really an issue. Yomangani talk 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and move the relevant content from Spellbound to this article, leaving only a brief summary and link. Should help expand it a bit. It may remain short, but oh well. Deco 22:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - concur with WilyD -- Whpq 19:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Mukadderat 19:09, 13 August 2006 (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.