→Holly Neher: agree |
A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk | contribs) →Holly Neher: Reply |
||
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
*'''Keep'''. The standard in [[WP:NHSPHSATH]] is that the coverage "goes beyond routine". Following the link to [[WP:ROUTINE]], we see that it refers to sports scores and the usual coverage that we would expect to see for individual games. Clearly, separate profiles of the subject as a groundbreaking athlete in international news media are not the sort of thing described there, so clearly the coverage does go beyond routine. And the claim that this is a single event would only be valid if we took it to the logical conclusion, that the event rather than the person is what is notable and that we should have an article on the event in place of the one we have now. But in this instance any such article (about the event of someone becoming the first female starting high school QB) would be indistinguishable from the actual article that we have. As for the discussion above, too much of it seems to follow reasoning like "female high school athletes can't possibly be notable, so this one can't be notable, so how can we possibly twist the notability guidelines to make them say she's not notable?" We should be evaluating whether she meets the guidelines neutrally, not coming into this with our own prejudices about what sorts of subjects should and shouldn't be notable. If we don't want to include articles like this one, but the guidelines say we should have them, then figure out what's wrong with the guidelines and propose changing them in the proper venue; in the meantime, we should follow what they say. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 23:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. The standard in [[WP:NHSPHSATH]] is that the coverage "goes beyond routine". Following the link to [[WP:ROUTINE]], we see that it refers to sports scores and the usual coverage that we would expect to see for individual games. Clearly, separate profiles of the subject as a groundbreaking athlete in international news media are not the sort of thing described there, so clearly the coverage does go beyond routine. And the claim that this is a single event would only be valid if we took it to the logical conclusion, that the event rather than the person is what is notable and that we should have an article on the event in place of the one we have now. But in this instance any such article (about the event of someone becoming the first female starting high school QB) would be indistinguishable from the actual article that we have. As for the discussion above, too much of it seems to follow reasoning like "female high school athletes can't possibly be notable, so this one can't be notable, so how can we possibly twist the notability guidelines to make them say she's not notable?" We should be evaluating whether she meets the guidelines neutrally, not coming into this with our own prejudices about what sorts of subjects should and shouldn't be notable. If we don't want to include articles like this one, but the guidelines say we should have them, then figure out what's wrong with the guidelines and propose changing them in the proper venue; in the meantime, we should follow what they say. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 23:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC) |
||
**This is better said than any other keep !vote IMO. So "what he said". [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 01:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
**This is better said than any other keep !vote IMO. So "what he said". [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 01:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
||
::: Even this Wikipedia page has been in the news. [http://www.news.com.au/sport/american-sports/holly-neher-won-a-place-in-history-and-her-own-wikipedia-page-with-just-one-throw/news-story/55e9bfcc2578ac4db238113424c700f8 News.com.au] (republication of: [http://nypost.com/2017/09/04/female-high-school-qb-makes-history-with-touchdown-pass/ NY Post]), and [http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/swoop/holly-neher-won-a-place-in-history-and-her-own-wikipedia-page-with-just-one-throw/news-story/55e9bfcc2578ac4db238113424c700f8 Daily Telegraph] plus [http://latestnewsnetwork.com/florida-girl-becomes-first-female-to-throw-a-touchdown/]. And more coverage on her [http://brobible.com/life/article/florida-qb-first-girl-touchdown-pass/] [http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/highschool/football/broward/fl-sp-hs-hills-neher-td-20170831-story.html] [http://uk.businessinsider.com/female-high-school-quarterback-touchdown-pass-2017-9?r=US&IR=T] [http://www.npr.org/2017/09/04/548415488/high-school-female-quarterback-throws-touchdown-pass-in-first-game] [http://www.sacbee.com/sports/article168399302.html] [https://article.wn.com/view/2017/09/01/VIDEO_Holly_Neher_becomes_first_girl_in_Florida_history_to_t/?template=celebritycouple%2Fheadlines.txt]. [[User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver|<span style="color:blue;">''Dysklyver''</span>]] 10:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:33, 5 October 2017
Holly Neher
- Holly Neher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously brought to AfD and closed as delete per BLP1E. The recent DRV on that closed as "Endorse but restore" with the option to take it to AfD to reevaluate the sourcing, so bringing it here. I saw nothing in the DRV that would get it past WP:NHSPHSATH, which is the main criteria we should be evaluating under in addition to BLP1E. A high school quarterback that gets coverage within one season is not sustained coverage. That two additional weeks have passed from the last AfD does not make it any less one event. This is very clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. If coverage of Ms. Neher continues past this season or reaches beyond routine coverage that is expected of major high school quarterbacks, then we can have an article. Currently though, even the coverage in major papers is relatively routine for high school athletes, and more coverage over a period of less than a month does not change the one event issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Since this closed so recently at DRV on the claims that the concerns of the last AfD were solved, I'm notifying all of the participants of the previous AfD @Paul McDonald, SchroCat, Ritchie333, WikiOriginal-9, 103.30.143.157, Hmlarson, EEng, Betty Logan, RickinBaltimore, Iridescent, TheGracefulSlick, Cullen328, Reyk, John from Idegon, Boing! said Zebedee, DGG, Bishonen, and Power~enwiki: if I have missed anyone unintentionally, please notify them. Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)@Lepricavark and Paulmcdonald: I seemed to have missed you or got the ping wrong. Sorry for the oversight. Pinging now. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment the article is egregiously bad and largely written to survive the AfD process rather than to be part of an encyclopedia. WP:NHSPHSATH is irrelevant, WP:GNG is the relevant standard. power~enwiki (π,ν) 18:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but NHSPHSATH is written to help limit what claims for HS athletes count towards GNG. If we didn't have it, virtually any HS quarterback in the US would pass the GNG. GNG is the standard, but the sports specific criteria helps us to understand it. I'd argue pretty strongly that Ms. Neher passes neither. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have not taken a position on notability, but am puzzled by the suggestion that the articles was "largely written to survive the AfD process rather than to be part of an encyclopedia." Articles are supposed to present a basis for the subject's notability and the fact that the author here has attempted to do just that is a plus rather than a badge of dishonor. Cbl62 (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- The article makes only one real claim: that she's a female high-school football player. Why this fact needs 26 references, other than to attempt to demonstrate that this meets GNG, is beyond me. Sentences like "Before playing in an actual game, Neher was gaining attention through the press." exist purely to throw more references in the article for AfD participants to point to, IMO. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- There are several noteworthy claims, but even if there were not--not all article content points toward notability, but all article content should ideally be referenced. Are you trying to say that the subject isn't notable because there is too much coverage in independent, third party reliable sources?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Power~enwiki, you're right. How encyclopaedic is "Neher's achievements began to change the landscape of high school football almost immediately[19] as news of the accomplishment spread to Australia." Ouch! Such overblown claims and bad prose make this even worse than normal (and what has Australia got to do without anything, for goodness sake?! - SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- That first claim came from Bleacher Report who wrote "Holly Neher is changing the landscape of high school football." The reference to the source in Australia speaks to the global impact. It's all true and all referenced.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- "true and referenced" isn't well written and isn't encyclopaedic. "True" is always debatable, with the poorly crowbarred reference to Australia in the text. This reads like a high school newsletter, not an encyclopaedia entry and parroting the excessive hyperbole of journalists is one element of that. Being very badly written is just part of the problem here tho. - SchroCat (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, truth is always debatable. I have heard people debate that the sky is orange. Comments on the content and editing should be reserved for the articles talk page. Of course, we discussed that in the last AFD so you should know that. Right now, the topic is the notability of the subject, not the quality of the prose of the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- If you want to keep 'on point' about the notability, why did you bring up the move to draftspace a few comments below? That has nothing to do with deletion either, but you're happy to drop it in here. Part of the problem tho Paul, is that you don't appear to listen. There was a consensus to delete the article: you didn't listen and went off to have it overturned (badly). You're told which bits of the prose are truly awful, and you leave them be. In the first 'life' of the article, I removed the truly awful sentence that had only been crowbarred in to try and get round AfD: "Several independent news sources have credited Neher as the first, including the Pensacola News Journal,[10] the Miami Herald,[7] Business Insider,[11] and USA Today.[12]" Not only did you not listen to people telling you it is crap prose, you went and forced it back in again without the slightest thought about why it was taken out. What is the point of taking stuff to the talk page if you're going to put your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you"? I really do get annoyed when people don't bother listening to a community consensus and then waste everyone's time by making lots of people jump through the same fucking hoops again to end up back at the same place. - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm "listening" (reading), and I "hear" (understand) you. I just think your views are incorrect in this case. There is no reason to get upset at me because we disagree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Im not "upset", so please don't try to tell me what I feel. I do not think you do understand the problems here, either with the notability or the standard or prose, and your unwillingness to edit some of the crapness out of the article, even when it is pointed out to you, speaks more than your claims to the contrary. - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- You are correct, you stated you are "annoyed" and not "upset" -- I apologize for that. Please avoid the use of gross profanity as outlined in the policy WP:CIVIL.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Please don't lecture me, it's fucking tiresome. (And no, that's not me being upset or annoyed, it's because calling the prose crap isn't uncivil). - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Please read WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL 1 (a).--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, for fucks sake. Stop with the civility bollocks and stop driving this further and further away from the deletion debate. Do you remember what happened when you dropped crap like this onto ANI last time? It was shut down quickly for being a pointless waste of everyone's time. The civility poking is beginning to take on shades of passive aggressive baiting, so drop it now. - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Since you feel safe at ANI, do you have any problem with being taken to Arbcom? Unscintillating (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- PMSL! If you want to waste the time of so many people doing something so pointlessly misguided, there is little I care to say or do to dissuade you. - SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- What exactly would you be taking ShroCat there for, Unscintillating? CassiantoTalk 22:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Not to be rude, but can you guys take this elsewhere? This has very little to do with the AfD. Unscintillating either do whatever it is you threatened to do and probably get WP:BOOMERANGed, or just stop.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete...again. Still a high school athlete who is recognized for one event. All the coverage on her is routine and we seem to forget Wikipedia is not a newspaper.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep references indicate WP:GNG met. "Currently though, even the coverage in major papers is relatively routine for high school athletes" - International news coverage is not relatively routine for high school football players. Hmlarson (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Query. "Endorse but restore"...? May we have a link to the DRV, please, Tony? I'm re-pinging @Lepricavark and Paulmcdonald:, just in case, because you're supposed to start a new line to ping somebody, I've been told. Bishonen | talk 18:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC).
- Thanks Bishonen, the link is here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 26. Also linking in nomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep There is no reasonable argument that she doesn't meet WP:N, so the question is does she overcome WP:BLP1E. Given that the sources started quite early on (August 23rd saw significant coverage in the Miami Herald that was reprinted as far away as in Pennsylvania) before she started playing and has coverage in the Bleacher Report after doing well, I'm not clear what the claimed "one event" would be. Throwing a touchdown can't be it, because there was a lot of coverage before that. I don't think "being a girl playing football" is an event. Hobit (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Its a question of what ongoing coverage means. I don't consider coverage within a two month period "ongoing". That's routine coverage for a football season. Re: the national press: yes, we've deleted high school athletes with better sourcing than that (though I'd be at a loss to find the AfDs). TonyBallioni (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- The word "ongoing" is not in WP:BLP1E nor is it in WP:NHSPHSATH. At least, not that I can find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- The word I was looking for was "prolonged" which is in NHSPHSATH:
High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage
. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)- Prolonged: From the article references, the first USA Today article was dated August 17, 2017 and the most recent referenced article is dated September 25, 2017. That's over a month. I suspect that many would say that qualifies. Wiktionary says prolonged means "lengthy in duration; extended; protracted", with Lengthy having its roots in the idea of being longer than traditional--and there's been a lot more coverage than your average high school quarterback.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- The word I was looking for was "prolonged" which is in NHSPHSATH:
- The word "ongoing" is not in WP:BLP1E nor is it in WP:NHSPHSATH. At least, not that I can find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Its a question of what ongoing coverage means. I don't consider coverage within a two month period "ongoing". That's routine coverage for a football season. Re: the national press: yes, we've deleted high school athletes with better sourcing than that (though I'd be at a loss to find the AfDs). TonyBallioni (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete There are special requirements for sources in this area, to supplement the GNG and explain what is relevant to notability more specifically. She does not have sources that meet them. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- What are these requirements and where can a list of them be found?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Still Delete, still 1E, still puffed-up sources. EEng 20:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep clearly passes WP:GNG with global coverage in significant independent third party sources over an extended period of time. WP:BLP1E does not apply because there is much more than "one" event, and WP:BLP2E is not a policy or guideline. WP:TOOSOON does not apply because the significant coverage already exists for events in the past. Multiple full-length feature articles in reliable sources like USA Today, Business Insider, and others clearly are WP:NOTROUTINE. The requirements in WP:NHSPHSATH are exceeded because notability is not derived from school papers or local coverage. And the claim that Wikipedia has deleted high school athletes with "better sourcing" cannot be taken seriously in this AFD because we are not talking about other sources and since the claim has no reference, we cannot evaluate those cases to see how they might apply here. Did I miss any?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete again per BLP1E, as I said last time. All the attempts to make this something other than BLP1E are completely unpersuasive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I rushed to move this to draftspace as soon as I saw that it had been sent to mainspace directly from the DRV. I recommend that it not be returned to mainspace until November. I see that even though I thought I'd get to it before anyone had a chance to nominate it for deletion, that there is already a frivolous process. Please move this to MfD if you think that a deletion process is needed. Unscintillating (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Why did you move it to draft?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- A more important point is why deletion review took such a sub-standard step in moving it back into mainspace. The subject is non-encyclopaedic and the writing little better than that of an average high school student. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I apologize that the bulk of the writing that I (and contributions from others) have put into the article isn't up to your standards for quality of an article. I wish I could write better and more to your liking. Unfortunately, "I don't like the writing" is not a reason to delete an article. If you want to know more about the reasons behind the DRV result you should contact the editor who executed that result. Do that, and then we will be right back here having this discussion. Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion? I remind you that WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is not an argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- A more important point is why deletion review took such a sub-standard step in moving it back into mainspace. The subject is non-encyclopaedic and the writing little better than that of an average high school student. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Why did you move it to draft?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep plenty of sources and BLP1E does not apply. Lepricavark (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete (still). Still falls foul of BLP1E and fails GNG requirements. There is no 'substantial and prolonged coverage' (a month just isn't "prolonged" coverage); this is, at best WP:TOOSOON for a student to pass as encyclopaedic content. – SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- "On the fence" comments. The problem here is the "prolonged" coverage prong of WP:NHSPHSATH. Unlike most SNGs, this one is an "exclusionary" standard intended to avoid opening the floodgates to thousands upon thousands of articles about high school athletes, a danger about which we need to be wary. On the other hand, the spirit of NHSPHSATH is to ensure that we limit high school athlete articles to truly exceptional cases. Here, even though the Neher story hasn't been around for long enough to qualify as having received "prolonged" coverage, it is an exceptional case that has garnered international, substantial, and non-routine coverage. Moreover, it involves a female athlete, a subject on which Wikipedia has had a significant problem of under-representation. For these latter reasons, and assuming the closure is done so as to avoid the floodgates problem, I would not be troubled were the article to be kept. 22:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs)
- Redirect for now to Hollywood Hills High School. Of course the sources pass WP:GNG, but GNG is not WP:N. For reasons that I don't entirely understand, this seems more like an event than a bio. WP:NHSPHSATH even erroneously requires event notability for people, which serves my purpose here. As an event, notability requires coverage the equivalent of Balloon Boy, where the coverage here doesn't come close. Much of this is a developing story, for example, there is nothing in Google books. Yes, the Sun Sentinel said on 25 Sep that, "Hollywood Hills junior Holly Neher made history with her start at quarterback on Friday night." But the next week she didn't start and didn't throw a pass. Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment looks like she picked up the start on their Oct 3 game from this article and had a fully-functional game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- "West Broward defense dominates Hollywood Hills in 33-13 victory". Sun Sentinel. September 28, 2017.
Hollywood Hills quarterback Holly Neher didn't start, played sparingly and did not throw a pass.
I don't think that being allowed to play only against easy opponents says much about her playing skills, just the opposite. Unscintillating (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)- Worth considering, but no reason is reported why she did not start or play very little. And she did get the start and significant play time in the next game. There could have been a medical reason she did not play, there could have been a family reason, or an academic one. Or maybe the coach's game plan called for a different signal caller against that opponent. It's worth considering, but I would say it's outweighed by getting the start and significant play time the next game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- "West Broward defense dominates Hollywood Hills in 33-13 victory". Sun Sentinel. September 28, 2017.
- Comment looks like she picked up the start on their Oct 3 game from this article and had a fully-functional game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete- from memory, this has not changed a lot since the last time except that the puffery and ref bombardment have become more grotesque. Reyk YO! 06:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to List_of_female_American_football_players#High_school (possibly with an anchor placed at Neher's entry). It is obvious that Neher has acquired some minor notability, but the article is mostly trivia and all the pertinent facts are already given at List of female American football players. It's really a question of substance and the general list already provides the essential coverage.. Betty Logan (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I asked above, but I'm guessing it got missed. Could one of the "1E" !voters identify the "one event" please? Hobit (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I asked that all through the last AFD and never got an answer. I'd still like to know the answer too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- The high school football season is in my mind, one event. Yes, multiple games, but we do treat sports seasons on Wikipedia as individual occurrences (see 2017–18 Fulham F.C. season for the first example that popped up in my search box). That combined with the fact that a two month period is not prolonged coverage makes it run afoul of our limitations as to what coverage counts. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- There is nothing in WP:BLP1E to even hint that multiple events should be lumped together and called "one" event, and that is supported by the guideline WP:ONEEVENT as well as the reasoning at the essays WP:WI1E and WP:BLP2E. One event means one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- The high school football season is in my mind, one event. Yes, multiple games, but we do treat sports seasons on Wikipedia as individual occurrences (see 2017–18 Fulham F.C. season for the first example that popped up in my search box). That combined with the fact that a two month period is not prolonged coverage makes it run afoul of our limitations as to what coverage counts. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I asked that all through the last AFD and never got an answer. I'd still like to know the answer too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep This person goes beyond being a one trick irrelevant athlete, the one event is that she was the "first female in the state of Florida to throw a touchdown in a high school game" as high school athletes are generally non-notable, this is considered the only claim of significance, but is also a one-off event. She is obviously groundbreaking in her multiple accomplishments, and while admittedly at a low level, this does not detract from her general significance, particularly in the US. She is clearly the first female to achieve a number of things many others (men) take for granted, however this puts here significance above that of, say, Joe Bloggs. Dysklyver 14:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Except it is not certain she is the first: the Florida High School Athletic Association concede there is some doubt. She certainly is the first person called Holly Neher to attain the low level of being the first female in the state of Florida to throw a touchdown in a high school game, but that is a long way short of being encyclopaedic. I'm also extremely wary when I see claims such as "groundbreaking" and "multiple accomplishments" as just another example of the hyperbole to which some are claiming as being notable. - SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm going to lift an argument from the deletion review: Just as an example, see the article Wright brothers which states "The Wright brothers... were two American brothers, inventors, and aviation pioneers who are generally credited[1][2][3] with inventing, building, and flying the world's first successful airplane." There are many sports precedents too, including Forward pass where it is written "Most sources credit St. Louis University's Bradbury Robinson from Bellevue, Ohio with throwing the first legal forward pass." There are many more.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I don't have enough knowledge of or interest in or our principles for sports articles to form an opinion as to "keep" or "delete" here. But, @Paulmcdonald: I'm getting a kind of déjà-vu feeling in relation to the first AfD (see my comment here). Do you intend to bludgeon this AfD as well, again without mentioning that you created the article? Please consider letting people who have no personal interest in it work out the article's fate from now on, without protesting against every "delete" argument. Bringing up the Wright brothers is kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel, surely. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC).
- Since you brought it up, I made some mistakes in the last AFD. One was not continuing to press for answers how several events were smashed down to "one event" and another was caving in and stopping my requests for clarification because of pressure from ... look at that... User:Bishonen, who is doing the same thing now. This is a discussion which means we discuss things. I put an essay together a while back about this at Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions and others have contributed to it as well. It is only through discussions that we actually learn. Editors are free to disagree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, and yes I created the article. I've never hid that, and anyone can find that in the article history.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- "One was not continuing to press": so you think you should have bludgeoned even more than you did...? And even when there was a consensus, you still ignored it and took a backdoor route to get it overturned. Do you ever think you may get things slightly wrong and that other people may be right? And no, to try and equate Holly Neher's possible accomplishment with that of the Wright Brothers really is a classic argumentum ad absurdum. - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Consensus is not a popular vote, and consensus can change. If you have a problem with the DRV process, this isn't really the place to discuss it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the patronising crap. I know what consensus is, and what level of arrogance in an individual that tries to get it reversed and overturned in their favour so soon after it has been decided. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I don't mean to be patronizing or otherwise insult you. I have no idea what kind of background you have in Wikipedia, and if I did I would still state full reasons because others who come to read this discussion may not have that same level of experience. As for the DRV--it came up under WP:DRV #3: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" -- as examples: USA Today "Hollywood Hills (Fla.) junior Holly Neher may have been the first girl to start a game at QB in high school football history" Bleacher Report "This 5'2" Female Quarterback Is Making High School Football History" Miami Dolphins "RISE weekly award winners" Sun-Sentinel "Hills QB Holly Neher cashes in on historic start with 51-27 win over Pompano Beach" Miami Herald "Hollywood Hills’ Holly Neher becomes first female starting quarterback in Florida" -- consensus there brought us here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Nothing new or significant, then. The same re-hashed news recycled over and over. The people at DRV have not done anyone a service on this one. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bishonen: I see from your userpage you are an admin and that you are "willing to make difficult blocks". I think this AfD has reached the stage where it would benefit if Paulmcdonald's further involvement were curtailed. Nothing against him on a personal level, but maybe a short 1-week block would allow this AfD to progress in a more natural manner because at the moment it is being derailed. Before the AfD is closed he could be allowed back to post one more comment where he could address any further issues raised. Betty Logan (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Block me? For what?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, I won't do that, Betty Logan. What I felt I could do was to advise Paul, above, against continuing to bludgeon this process. All I got for that was resentment, with an odd hint that I might be trying to conceal that I had made a similar comment at the first AFD (a comment that I did want people here to know about, so I actually linked to it in my advice here): "because of pressure from ... look at that... User:Bishonen, who is doing the same thing now". Yes, look at that. Strange attitude, but I don't see a blocking matter. You'll have to take it to ANI if you feel that strongly about it, Betty. By the way I'd be surprised if ArbCom entertained a request for arbitration against SchroCat, per Unscintillating's dark hint,[1] (for what?). P. S. The "difficult blocks" thing doesn't mean I do IAR blocks, it just means I'm not afraid to block abusers who are likely to come after me IRL. Admins whose real-life identity is known had better not do that, but I feel well hidden. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC).
- Are you here in your role as an administrator? If this goes to Arbcom, Arbcom might want to know that. Unscintillating (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- It won't; so they won't :) — fortunavelut luna 23:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Are you here in your role as an administrator? If this goes to Arbcom, Arbcom might want to know that. Unscintillating (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- [text moved to talk page by Unscintillating (talk) ] 22:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note The attribution and possible merge and delete discussion has been moved to: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher (2nd nomination)#Merge and delete. Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. The standard in WP:NHSPHSATH is that the coverage "goes beyond routine". Following the link to WP:ROUTINE, we see that it refers to sports scores and the usual coverage that we would expect to see for individual games. Clearly, separate profiles of the subject as a groundbreaking athlete in international news media are not the sort of thing described there, so clearly the coverage does go beyond routine. And the claim that this is a single event would only be valid if we took it to the logical conclusion, that the event rather than the person is what is notable and that we should have an article on the event in place of the one we have now. But in this instance any such article (about the event of someone becoming the first female starting high school QB) would be indistinguishable from the actual article that we have. As for the discussion above, too much of it seems to follow reasoning like "female high school athletes can't possibly be notable, so this one can't be notable, so how can we possibly twist the notability guidelines to make them say she's not notable?" We should be evaluating whether she meets the guidelines neutrally, not coming into this with our own prejudices about what sorts of subjects should and shouldn't be notable. If we don't want to include articles like this one, but the guidelines say we should have them, then figure out what's wrong with the guidelines and propose changing them in the proper venue; in the meantime, we should follow what they say. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)