Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Haddad-Fonda

Kyle Haddad-Fonda

Kyle is a fine person, but does not merit a wikipedia page. At least not yet. Akrnsk 05:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; winning the National Geography Bee, being a phone-a-phone on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, nor attending Harvard makes someone notable. joturner 05:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I competed with him at the National Geography Bee, and I know him personally, but still, he isn't notable enough for his own article (and neither are any geography bee/spelling bee winners). They go on to lead pretty ordinary lives. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I would lose any geography competition with him but the article nonetheless fails WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 05:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-02 08:46Z
• Delete per above. SM247^{My Talk} 10:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have to disagree with Mike H. that the winners of major national geography and spelling bees (i.e. the National Geographic Bee and the Scripps National Spelling Bee) do not merit articles. I see that Katharine Close, the 2006 winner of the Scripps National Spelling Bee, has her own article, as do Wendy Guey, Rebecca Sealfon, Jody-Anne Maxwell, and Nupur Lala, the 1996-1999 SNSB champions. Even Finola Hackett and Saryn Hooks, 2006 SNSB runner-up and third-place finisher respectively, have articles. No one seems to be clamoring for any of these articles to be deleted (although maybe someone will, now that I've pointed this out), and yet I don't see which notability criterion they satisfy but Kyle does not. For the sake of consistency, either every (reasonably recent) winner of both of these competitions should have his or her own article, or else none of them should. I support the former option - after all, both of these competitions are aired annually on national television, so they aren't insignificant. Furthermore, if you view academic competitions as equivalent to sports, then both Kyle and Katharine Close clearly qualify under the "competitor at the highest level in amateur sports" criterion. Equating academic competitions with sports is a debatable convention, I concede, but Wikipedia should at least give national champions the benefit of the doubt. (As a final note, I also take issue with Mike H.'s contention that people who "go on to lead pretty ordinary lives" should be barred from Wikipedia. Wikipedia - and, indeed, any encyclopedia - has hundreds of articles about people who "go on to lead pretty ordinary lives" after some major event which makes them noteworthy.) Diplomacy Guy 14:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I understand your point but on the other hand the existence of articles of dubious importance cannot really support keeping another one. I think that it is also important to understand that the "competitor at the highest level" implicitly refers to some sort of notability of the competition. I don't think many would support the creation of multiple pages for the winner of the world horseshoes championship or the winner of the most delicious pie contest in Slovakia. Also, the spelling bee competition is much more well-known than the corresponding geography contest even if the latter is now on TV since it is organized by the National Geography network. Pascal.Tesson 17:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I share your unwillingness to invite the creation of dozens of frivolous pages about insignificant competitions, but I would argue that the Geographic Bee passes the notability test. National Geographic says that the Geographic Bee "involves nearly 5 million students annually" [1]; I couldn't find a comparable figure for the Spelling Bee, but that seems like a lot. Also, while the Spelling Bee is more than sixty years older than the Geographic Bee, the two have been televised for about the same amount of time: the Spelling Bee since 1994, the Geographic Bee since 1998 (and on PBS, not just National Geographic's network). Diplomacy Guy 22:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I really can't understand anymore why the arguing about policy is done here rather than where it is supposed to be argued. This article clearly has passed WP:VER and has reliable secondary sources!! It also, clearly meets WP:BIO. Maybe I am so new that I have been reading the newer version compared to what everyone else remembers, but, this person has won a national level contest; i.e. "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". he's representing the United States as captain of the four-man American team in the International Geographic Olympiad, which started Tuesday in Vancouver, B.C. Please don't send me anymore messages telling me that I don't research before I nominate. This article could use some expansion, but this person clearly passes all the criteria. Ste4k 18:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I guess it depends on what one considers a newsworthy event. The result of a contest such as this one is reported typically on slow news days as a human interest story. For instance, searching on the nytimes archive, you can see that the NY times has only reported the result occasionally. Pascal.Tesson 18:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete winning the Geography Bee doesn't merit an article. Wikibout-Talk to me! 22:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Winners of the National Geography Bee are not the subject of general public interest. --Metropolitan90 03:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; I don't consider winners of events such as the one cites as conferring notability and wide public interest for Wikipedia bio purposes. --MCB 05:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above - WP:NN. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Weak Keep. Winning the National Spelling Bee is far more notable than some other "notable" achievements, such as winning the Air Guitar Championships. Royalbroil 04:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment it's not the National Spelling Bee, it's the National Geographic Bee which has far less exposure. Pascal.Tesson 13:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my error. I have changed by vote to weak keep. Barely notable - on the edge. Royalbroil 01:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It should be point out that after winning the Geo Bee, Mr. Haddad-Fonda was interviewed by CNN and was on the Today show (Look it up on Lexis Nexus, transcripts are quite interesting.) Recently, there has been several Op-Eds published arguing that the Geo Bee is far more important than the Spelling Bee, but the Spelling Bee is getting more attention. Charles Passey of the New York Times in an editorial (May 23, 2006) wrote:

“The National Geographic Bee, that is. For all the attention that continues to be accorded to the National Spelling Bee, from a feature film (Akeelah and the Bee) to a prize-winning documentary (Spellbound) to a Broadway musical (The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee), the less-heralded Geography Bee is more relevant. After all, we live in a global age, when events in far-flung countries have as much impact as those close to home. It stands to reason that knowing where these places are would be an invaluable skill.”

But back to Mr. Haddad-Fonda, I do not think that Mr. Haddad-Fonda has “lead pretty ordinary” life as stated by Mike H (It should also be pointed out that Mr. Halterman LOST to Mr. Haddad-Fonda.) Besides being a Geo Bee champion he: was Captain of the US team in the International Geography Olympiad, was a Phone-a-Friend, was a Presidential Scholar, lead his High School Knowledge Bowl to the finals of National High School Quiz Bowl, wrote an article for the Concord Review, and raised money to promote geography. Of course none of these things are as newsworthy as wining the National Geo Bee (expect the International Geography Olympiad. The Seattle Post Intelligencer sent a reporter to cover the event, because Mr. Haddad-Fonda was involved.), but they do prove that Mr. Haddad-Fonda is not ordinary, especially for the 19 year old. Which brings me to my last point. Who would be interested in knowing who this person is anyway? Simple answer: The same type of people that would be interested in who won the National Spelling Bee. What type of person is this? The type of person that wants to know what it takes to win a competition like the Geo Bee or the Spelling Bee. There are over 5 million kids involved with the Geo Bee plus their parents, who would love to know what it takes to be champion. Therefore the Geo Bee is relevant and important, making Kyle Q. Haddad-Fonda no mere ordinary person. --Orzel 02:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Orzel: The amount you know about Kyle Haddad-Fonda is quite astounding. I simply must disagree with you. Millions of people watch the spelling bee every year, and consequently the contestants are brought into the public spotlight. The national geography bee is not nearly as well known as the Spelling Bee. Even if kids and there parents do in fact visit Kyle Haddad-Fonda's wikipedia page, they don't find "what it takes to win" they find two sentences about Kyle Haddad- Fonda.

I am really frightened by what you know about Kyle. Much of it was not in the article or in the links. For example, I couldn't substantiate what you said about his participation in high school Quiz Bowl, and I only found reference to Concord Review when I specifically searched for that with Kyle's name. Which makes me wonder who are you? Perhaps you are justified in not identifying yourself, after the criticism of Mike H. However, it seems that you either a stalker, a close friend, or family member of Kyle or even Kyle himself, which explains your impassioned plea to keep the article. It is important that the decision to delete a biographical article not be based on how many of the subject's friends vote, but based on the actual content of the article. In the case that you are Kyle Haddad-Fonda, a person as smart as you should realize that Wikipedia has certain standards, and that there are many fine people without articles.--Akrnsk 17:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Sorry to tell you this but I have never met Kyle and we are not related. How do I know so much? Its because I am a very good researcher. Which was what I was doing, when I found this discussion. On a quite July 4th morning, I was doing research on the Civil War in Troy, NY. I decide to google information on James Robert Fonda, who was involved in a pre-Civil War dispute (if you want more information on this I would be happy to tell you). Which, lead me to the Fonda Genealogy Website. I noticed that one of his descendants was Kyle Haddad-Fonda, and believe it or not I actually recognized the name, but I was not sure why. So, I googled Haddad-Fonda’s name, which lead me to Wikipedia. And then everything click together. I remembered that I actual watched that particular Geo Bee, and about a year later I heard his name in relationship to a now defunct website called Worldwise Worldwide (which came to my attention when I was working for State Education Dept. It was a really impressive website, but I digress.)

I noticed that Haddad-Fonda entry was up for deletion. I truly feel that the champion of the Geo Bee should be given as much status as the National Spelling Bee champion, so I decided to put my two cents in. I believe that any argument should be based on the facts. So, I first took it upon myself to review all of the websites attached to his entry. (Which I found out later, by looking at the history, was placed there by the guy runs the Fonda Genealogy Website. Who attempted to expand the entry, but his information was deleted since it was not his own.) Then I did research on Google, Lexis Nexus, and the New York Times. This only took a couple of hours, and I have to admitted that the more I read about him the more I was impressed. At some point, I will expand the entry, if everyone agrees to keep it.

One last point – Now that I have made my intentions clear and related how I got here, it would be nice to know how Akrnsk got here. I find it strange that the only thing Akrnsk has done for Wikipedia is to demand the deletion of the Haddad-Fonda entry. --Orzel 18:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I apologize for the attack. The tone was getting a little bit aggressive with the attack on the respected Wikipedian Mr. Halterman, and I followed suit - I should not have. Now, I will try again to address the points that you raised. First, I do not disagree with you that Kyle Haddad-Fonda has some amazing accomplishments. It isn't easy to win the Geography Bee. You say that "the champion of the Geo Bee should be given as much status as the National Spelling Bee champion." First, Wikipedia is not about status. Biography articles are intended provide information to people who are intersted about the subject - not to confer status upon the subject. The argument about Spelling Bee versus Geography Bee is not a subjective question of the merits of spelling and geography, it is a more objective question of interest. The Spelling Bee is broadcast on primetime television and has millions more viewers than the Geography Bee. Thus there is much more interest in the winners than the Spelling Bee.

Even if the Geography Bee generated enough interest as the Spelling Bee, it would be difficult to justify a Wikipedia entry for Kyle. The vast majority of past winners of the Spelling Bee do not have entries, and those that do have gone on to do something that would generate additional interest in them. For example Jacques Bailly the winner of the 1980 bee is now the official pronouncer for the bee. His article is certainly worthwhile; people who watch the bee hear that his name, look him up on Wikipedia and find out that he actually won the bee in 1980. A few are less notable - Wendy Guey for example, but I must agree with Tesson: "existence of articles of dubious importance cannot really support keeping another one." In fact, if the final decission is to delete the page about Kyle, I will propose the delition of Guey's page.

One last thing, it is customary to only vote once on a proposed deletion. Perhaps you can change the heading on your second vote to "Comment" rather than "Keep"--Akrnsk 20:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Strong agreeance with above comments.--HansTAR 09:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Orzel makes an excellent point. Wikipedia is great, not only because it serves as some sort of showcase for famous people, but because it teaches the public about these people. While some might dismiss the Geo Bee as irrelevant, that is a very subjective judgment, and also rather shortsighted. Who knows how much popularity Geo Bee will gain in the future. But besides, more importantly, we must recognize that what Wikipedia needs is not less info but more. So Pascal.Tesson doesn't feel we need information on Mr. Haddad-Fonda. So what? Even if there were a million Pascal.Tesson's around, if there is one person who wants information on Mr. Haddad-Fonda, there should be that information. If Mike H. feels uncomfortable reading about Mr. Haddad-Fonda for personal reasons, that should not limit the ability of others who might feel inspired by Mr. Haddad-Fonda's story. First Sea Lord 8:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It seems as if the high-minded self-styled "guardians" of Wikipedia simply cannot behold the fact that Mr. Haddad-Fonda has accomplished more in 17 years than most people will accomplish in their entire lives. In any event, despite all of his achievements to date, Mr. Haddad-Fonda continues to spend his time improving his abilities and relentlessly fine-tuning his mind, while others merely waste away their hours trolling Wikipedia in search of articles to delete as a way of brushing their own egos and inflating their sense of self-importance. Furthermore, those who wish to delete this entry are doing little more than delaying the inevitable, as an expanded entry of Mr. Haddad-Fonda -- who has always, not by luck or fortune but by dint of hard work and determination, pushed himself to levels of the mind that few can comprehend -- an expanded entry will necessarily be created in the future, rendering your current work meaningless. Down in North Carolina, some basketball coach's claim to fame -- his epitaph -- is that he cut Michael Jordan from his high school basketball team. Numerous publishers rejected the "Chicken Soup for the Soul" series -- over 100, in fact -- before little-known Health Communications saw its potential, and the result has been tens of millions of dollars in revenue, as well as embarrassment for the rest of those publishers who trusted their egos so much that they blinded themselves from a series that connected with the values that have always made us human. All of you who wish to "Delete," I'm sure, care about Wikipedia, and perhaps, in some far-off way, care about Kyle and believe in his future and the contributions that he can make to this country and our world. So think before you act. Reflect not just on Mr. Haddad-Fonda's life, and all the potential therein, but on your own life, and what sort of legacy you wish to leave. Most of us are, in fact, "ordinary beings," which is perfectly all right. But let there be no doubt that all of us, if just in some small way, are remembered, and that as our story fades into the stream of history, it leaves its own small -- and indelible -- imprint. After you live a good long life, and they publish your obituary fifty years from now, let me implore you -- You do not want the first sentence of your obituary to say that you were an instrumental part of the movement to deny one of the great men of the 21st Century, Mr. Haddad-Fonda, a wikipedia entry. - The Reaganite
• Delete I think you and First Sea Lord are right. Wikipedia is valuable because it teaches the public about famous people, not because it is a showcase for famous people. Kyle Haddad-Fonda's page as it stands now is a little more than a Vanity page. Please note that I said "a little more." It is a little bit more than the vanity page described in the article. The question of noteworthiness is what we are debating now. Wikipedia strives to have articles that are useful and relevant today. If it tried to document every individual who showed some potential - if it tried to follow every up and coming youth, Wikipedia would not only be faced with an insurmountable task, it would be a mess of nearly worthless autobiographies. Wikipedia is not a book publisher. Book publishers speculate as to the success of the works and make a decision based on what they believe the future of a book holds. Wikipedia articles document what has happened, it is not a crystal ball. It is possible that Kyle Haddad-Fonda will become a "one of the great men of the 21st Century," and when that day comes, I will fully support the creation of his Wikipedia page, however until that day comes, his Wikipedia page will remain frivolous.--Akrnsk 17:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I feel it that is strange that Akrnsk never refuted my main argument, but attack my intentions. If anyone wants to know my intentions can see my comments responding to Akrnsk. But, my main points still stand. The Geo Bee is an important competition that involves millions of students each year. Furthermore, as Mr. Haddad-Fonda has shown, its champions are interviewed by many prominent news outlets. It would be a disservice to Geo Bee to “downgrade” its champions, while showcasing the champions of the Spelling Bee. Honestly, I can see millions of participants of Geo Bee, who would interested in knowing the backgrounds of the past champions, which is reason effort to kept this entry. --Orzel 20:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)