Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
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 delete. Mainly per the WP:BLP1E point; the validity of the WP:INDISCRIMINATE point is contested and all examples cited in that policy are about particular ways information is presented, not about topics. The BLP1E/WP:ONEEVENT points have a consensus behind, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Neher[edit]

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)

Utterly un-notable individual, doing something utterly unremarkable about which the local sports body are not sure is even unique SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As one editor thinks "utterly non-notable" is not a reason to delete (nonsense, of course it's a good reason to delete, and quoting an essay at me is not likely to engender much reasoned comment), we'll go for WP:DEL8 about a pointless waste of time and effort in trying to crowbar in unencyclopaedic crap into what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. You could also go with WP is not a collection of random factoids, add that trivial rubbish shouldn't be our aim. As for the "local sports body", in case you didn't quite understand the reference, it concerns the Florida High School Athletic Association who are not sure that the single minor record this individual has broken, has in fact been broken, just that it "could be", which is soooo unencyclopaedic it makes by brain ache... - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Deletion 8 -- Deletion rule 8 in Deletion Policy states "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)." The subject in question clearly passes WP:GNG with the requirement "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and therefore passes the notability standards previously established.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inability of journalists to check facts or check information one of the more depressing facts of modern society (and one reason we have WP:NOTNEWS). The local sports bodybhave said it cannot be verified and have onlynsaid this rather dubious factoid "could be" true, but cannot verify it. The lazy-arsed journos who have parsednthis as "she was the first" shouldn't be holding down a job, but that is no reason for what purports to be a proper encyclopaedia to repeat second-rate nonsense under the guise that it is "encyclopaedic": that is fluff and chaff for the second-rate only. - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be true I suppose--and the article mentions that. Even if it is, the subject still has received significant coverage. That's the measure of WP:GNG. Even if the source articles are incorrect, the coverage is still there. That's significant.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on "random factoids" -- The link in the "Random Factoids" argument directs to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This argument does not apply because 1: the article in question is not an indiscriminate list but is very WP:DISCRIMINATE in its content; and 2: the article is not summary-only descriptions of works, lyrics databases, excessive listings of unexplained statistics, nor exhaustive logs of software updates. Any data in the article is "put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" as the policy calls for.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's an indiscriminate "fact" (of dubious veracity), which is used to act as a coathook a pointless article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how you believe it is "indiscriminate"--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on "trivial rubbish" -- The link for the "trivial rubbish" argument links to "Why we have these requirements" section in the Notability guideline, and every point in that section has been met or exceeded.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. It's trivial bollocks that should be nowhere near the project. This is an encyclopaedia, not the "And finally" snippet of the sports pages. - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that it's an "and finally" article simply because of the widespread coverage. "And finally" articles are typically one or two articles, not significant major stories covered by multiple writers and published in multiple national publications.--~~
  • It's still not close to the prolonged threshold. - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the subject has not met the "prolonged" threshold. The question is, which measure is best: WP:GNG or WP:NHSPHSATH? Both are worthy to be considered. The first question that comes to mind is this: is NHSPHSATH inclusive or exclusive for high school athletes? In other words, if the subject does meet GNG and not NHSPHSATH, is the article considered notable or not? That's a bit of philosophy...--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial bollocks, one event, rest as per Shrocat and Ritchie333 103.30.143.157 (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:TRIVIAL is also an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. It's not really an argument but just a subjective opinion. "One event" does not apply because the significant coverage began before the noted game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment even this Wikipedia article is making news in Australia: The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, NSW) "Holly Neher won a place in history, and her own Wikipedia page, with just one throw"
  • Lazy journalism of mis-reporting circumastances and a self-fulfilling prophecy. I feel we are very much in barrel-scrapping mode when it comes to this article.
  • The only item that seems to be mis-reported is that the Florida high school association cannot confirm that she is the first female to throw a touchdown pass, but believes it is true. That is reflected in the article and in many of the online sources. The rest of the story--the success of the play, the drive to learn the position, the role in the team, the coaching, the game--all of that is confirmed and is covered extensively through reliable third party sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. The statement "I feel we are very much in barrel-scrapping mode" is just a subjective opinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not misrepresent my views by saying the basis of my delete argument is IDONTLIKEIT, it is completely untrue and extremely uncivil. To rectify other untruths: the people who should know the details (the Florida school board) cannot confirm she is definitely the first; and, no, the media sources do not reflect that, they are stating as fact that she is first (and lazy journalism is the very worst basis for lazy encyclopaedia writing). Yes, I agree that the rest of the game is covered in the press, but this article isn't about the game, it's about one person who many not be the first person to have done one thing. Such triviaial "notability", particularly from a school attendee is not encyclopaedic, it's barrel-scappingly awful. - SchroCat (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement "I feel we are very much in barrel-scrapping mode when it comes to this article" is a clear indication of a personal point of view, and such personal points of view should be avoided. I do apologize for any lack of civility that you feel as it certainly is not intentional.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it is a personal opinion, but that is entirely different for claiming my argument for deletion is based on IDONTLIKEIT. It's also not correct to say that opinions should be avoided; AfD is all about the opinion of where articles fail to meet the required standards for inclusion for an encyclopaedia, rather than a high school yearbook. - SchroCat (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read what I have written. Trying to match facts against policies will always be a matter of opinion in judging the weight of what is available against our policies. if it wasn't, then processes like AfD would be bot-driven. (And you're drifting further and further from the point of what this AfD is supposed to be about with this thread. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, please refrain from making AFD-type comments in the "comments" of the article, as you did here. Such comments belong in AFD, not embedded in the article itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this has sweet FA to do with the AfD, so it isn't the place to raise it, but as you have done so, I'll have to answer it here. The comment is not an "AFD-type comment": it highlights how poor the text is. That sentence text ("Several independent news sources state that indeed she was the first, including the Pensacola News Journal,[6] the Miami Herald,[4] Business Insider,[7] and USA Today.[8]") has obviously been written with AfD in mind, and it's very poorly done. There is no need to list the publications involved at all - that's why we have inline citations or footnotes
  • I'm unfamiliar with the phrase "sweet FA" -- if you believe the text in the article is poorly written (and I'm not saying it isn't), feel free to edit the content.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Fanny Adams#Legacy. If I edit it, I'll take out the sentence. It has no place in there. As you seem to be unable to keep talk page subjects out of the AfD, feel free to answer there, or edit the article yourself. If not, I'll take out the line. Scratch that - given your offer, I've edited the line, but I'll put a fat wedge of cash on a pointless revert. - SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted on the talk page, blanking the entire section and removing the sources cited wasn't exactly what I had in mind and seems to be an unproductive edit, possibly even interfering with the AFD process. Please make another attempt. See WP:PRESERVE for ideas.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another untruth? Provide a diff for where I have been "blanking the entire section" or strike yet another uncivil misrepresentation you have made (you are an admin: start behaving like one). You have, yet again utterly misrepresented me, and now you accuse me of being unproductive for removing second rate prose? And no, it doesn't interfere with the AfD process: those same links to WP:109PAPERS have been recorded in the history if people want to see them and the facts of the matter are as unchanged as they were before. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is rather obvious to all, I have removed one sentence, not, as you have claimed "the entire section" nor "a huge chunk of text"; try and get some perspective here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment more coverage out of Guam as it was picked up there before her official game appearance. Also, another interesting reference at HeroSports.com (which may be just some blog, but worth a read knowing that).--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still in WP:109PAPERS territory, and still an uncertain 'record' the school board cannot adequately confirm. - SchroCat (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:1E (at most this is a sentence in some article on US high school football), and are we going to have one of these for every US state? EEng 20:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:1E. The event is covered at List of female American football players which is probably sufficient. Betty Logan (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Honestly this speaks more about what's seen as "news" in this day and age than anything else. I don't see her having any lasting impact, and in a few weeks.months when the HS football season is in full gear, it will be a footnote. A mention on List of female American football players would suffice. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also Samantha Gordon. Wonder if Neher will also get an invitation to the Super Bowl from Goodell and make an appearance on a Wheaties box. Seems strange to delete an article about a young athlete that has received so much international news coverage and not expect the deletion itself to show up in the news - particularly considering the context of her notability. Hmlarson (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a likely candidate for deletion as well, but I'll leave that for someone more interested in the topic area. It certainly needs a severe copyedit. "Her abilities as a football player gained her acclaim when she was nine years old" – oh, for crikey's sake. EEng 00:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Most articles on wikipedia need copyedits. I'm sure someone will eventually get to it. Hmlarson (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're laughing at. At least some of the sources don't support the text citing it, the tone is way off, and I doubt it would survive AfD for the much the same reason this one won't. EEng 17:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per exactly what EEng says above. The absolute epitome of WP:BLP1E. ‑ Iridescent 22:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I know I've mentioned this above, so I'll be brief because it seems to have been missed by recent reviews: WP:BLP1E refers to "Subjects notable only for one event" but the coverage in the news that in my view surpasses general notability guideline includes many days before the event even occurred, as noted by User:WikiOriginal-9 above. It's more than "one event" so that argument should not apply. It's not WP:BLP2E.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:1EVENT. The fact she is the first female athlete who completed a TD pass in Florida is trivial, an ideal story for the media to sensationalize briefly. Being the first in a state -- where is the WP:LASTING impact associated with that?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. And turn down the heat. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eeng, Richie, and SchroCat. Reyk YO! 06:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm getting really tired of seeing the fluff that the fluff news feeds on Facebook carry here. What's next, a story on every new dress Mrs. Trump wears? Fails 1E. If she makes all-state or gets a scholarship offer, that would be continuing coverage. She's not the first female HS football player (which BTW would also be 1E), she's not the first female HS football player to actually play, she's not the first female HS football player to score. This is nonsense. At some point, people here have got to realize that a Wikipedia article is permanent, unlike a newspaper story. John from Idegon (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we didn't already have WP:BLP1E, this is the kind of article we'd need to create it for. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear BLP1E. Nothing here is encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BLP1E does not apply given the coverage that preceded that purported lone event. The backlash against 'trivial rubbish' carries a distinct WP:IDONTLIKEIT tone. Lepricavark (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a non-notable high school student. BLP1E clearly applies. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Holly_Neher

Leave a Reply