Deletion of Finola Hackett (3rd nomination)

Comment: Subject is notable per the terms of otability; content is verifiable, neutral and in all other respects compliant with policy.  The deletes so far all seem to be snap judgements, not rationales
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:JNN||WP:N)