Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samir Patel

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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-03 07:56Z

[edit] Samir Patel

Samir Patel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Doesn't seem all that notable. His claim to fame is being a runner-up in the spelling bee. It's arguable if the winners have notability, but the runners up? It's an entirely unsourced biography and it reads like it has either WP:COI or WP:AUTO issues. Metros232 19:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete He certainly has a very good chance at winning the spelling bee, and there are numerous media reports about him in connection with the competition, but he hasn't won the national competition. The article does ready like a vanity page as well. If he wins, this article can certainly be recreated. <3Clamster 19:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - no evidence of third-party independent sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless independent sources (e.g. news reports) are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep as more sources have since been added. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with possible WP:AUTO issues. Picture was taken by family member. No independent news reports are available regarding him. Agree that it could be recreated if he does eventually win the competition instead of runner-up. Warfieldian 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Weak Keep based on additional published works added.
• Keep but completely rewrite First, I have found many articles from reputable sources by searching for him on Google (both under "Samir Patel" and his full name, "Samir Sudhir Patel"). This from the Washington Post and this from ESPN are both about Samir, among other spellers. There are a bunch of articles from Indian sources about the success of Samir and other Indian-American spellers, including the winner when Samir was runner-up. And then, of course, there are tons of major web sites that give Bee results word for word or report on the final rounds. As important as the media mentions, however, is something I've argued a few times before, which is that anyone who competes at this level of the National Spelling Bee- making the final two and high finishes three times- passes the sportsperson criterion of WP:BIO (if you count spellers as sportspeople) by competing at the highest level of their "sport". The National Spelling Bee is broadcast on major networks (ESPN and ABC) in prime time; it is watched by millions of people, and to reach the final rounds of the Bee, a speller must defeat not only 200+ other spellers at the national competition, but millions of others (if I recall correctly, Scripps estimates that 10 million children compete in feeder/qualifier bees, though this of course includes school bees with children that have no aspirations of going further). A speller must put in as much time at his craft as any other competitor (I don't know about you, but I don't want to read dictionaries and study word roots for five hours per day, six days per week), and to finish second place in an historic, nationally-televised competition is enough for an article in my opinion. With all of that said, this article is absolutely terrible and should probably be stripped of 95% of its content. Still, the 5% that remains is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 21:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - if you add the Washington Post and ESPN refs to the article I will change my vote to Keep. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep*Listen, i know him... he is more notable than Saryn Hooks or Finola Hackett due to his TV appearances. Why delet? Onyx the hero 23:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, proficient but nn spelling bee / TV contestant. Multiple, non-trivial sources treating Patel as their subject? The Wash. Post article cited by K222 is clearly about Anurag Kashyap. The photo used in the article is also used in the ESPN article, where it is attributed to AP / Linda Spillers, which contradicts the rather weak assertion on the image page "Taken at the scripps national spelling bee in 2006 i believe by Sudhir Patel -- his father". Good luck with the acting career, maybe we'll see you again.. Deiz talk 00:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page. Suttungr 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete, vanity page with no reliable sources. fethers 13:36
• keep and rewrite a bit i re-wrote it, more encyclopedic, see what you think Onyx the hero 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)20:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep Second place at Scripps National is easily the "highest level" in "competitive activities that [is itself] considered notable" per WP:BIO. I've cleaned up the page, excising the things that I think you guys found offensive and adding two references. Please take another look. If you need more references, LexisNexis has a few more. But seriously, I think this easily passes WP:BIO. Scripps National is a major event. — brighterorange (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• PS. Please don't count the sockpuppetry against this article; all of the above comments were made before I trimmed it way down and added in numerous reliable sources. — brighterorange (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when votes were made. If users have changed their minds, they will change their votes. An admin has to consider every vote, even if its after someone "fixed up" the article. My opinion is the same as it was before the article was trimmed down. <3Clamster 22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Our family has been watching the spelling bee since 1993. This little boy has impressed us since he came in 2003. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.187.122.4 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC).— 76.187.122.4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep definitely a good article Vulcanoetch1 00:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)— Vulcanoetch1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep, three reliable verifiable sources is enough to establish notability Alf^Photoman 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:BIO states "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works," it appears he is the primary subject of only one of those verifiable sources. Warfieldian 19:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree. WP:BIO says a primary subject, not the primary subject, and he is a primary subject of at least two of them. (The 'word nerds' ref starts with the sentence "Meet Samir Patel.") I just added another one where you can tell he is the primary subject from just the title, if that is important. So now there are definitely multiple non-trivial published works. But this is not the only way to meet WP:BIO; it also states that competing at the highest level in a competitive activity itself considered notable is a sufficient criterion, which he does. — brighterorange (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The most important criterion is multiple non-trivial published works about the subject and not the fact that he competed at the highest level of competitive activity. As WP:BIO states "The following criteria make it _likely_ that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of these criteria may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available." If he had competed at high level of competitive activity and had no reliable published works about him, then he would not be notable (although that's unlikely as the guideline suggests). I do think that there is sufficient material has been added to the article at this point to change my recommendation. Warfieldian 23:38, 27 February 2007 (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.