Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher (2nd nomination)


 * 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. This one was a bit of a challenge to parse (not helped by the substantial amount of off-topic digression, and the result of the DRV was unusual to say the least), but while not unanimous, the consensus here is that WP:BLP1E does apply in this instance. Especially when dealing with a BLP of a minor, consensus on BLP concerns are a substantial issue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Holly Neher
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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 if I have missed anyone unintentionally, please notify them. Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)  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)
 * , 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, ?  Cassianto Talk   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. 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)
 * The coverage of a high school quarterback in the Bleacher Report and USA Today is routine? I doubt that one in 1000 see coverage like that. Hobit (talk) 19:17, 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, just in case, because you're supposed to start a new line to ping somebody, I've been told. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Thanks, the link is here: 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)
 * 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.  E Eng  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)
 * Would you or someone else please identify the event in question? Hobit (talk) 21:20, 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)
 * I haven't said it is a reason to delete it (in fact in a comment above about the parroting of journalistic hyperbole I say the awful prose if one of this article's problems). - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 4 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)
 * 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)
 * I've added a paragraph break to clarify that the point I was making was related to this being a developing news story. Unscintillating (talk) 01:26, 6 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 (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)
 * 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 8generally 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,  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 &#124; 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 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)

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, (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 &#124; 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 :)  &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  23:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating, wut? Drmies (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They've been told elsewhere, . I would suggest they are are all talk and no trousers.   Cassianto Talk   18:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's funny, since last night our fire alarm went off and I greeted the firemen in my underpants at 1:30 AM. I didn't have much talk either. Anyway, I really don't understand these comments here. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, it's an AfD discussion that Mr Unscintillating is trying to manipulate, coerce and control by making loose, baseless threats on people with whom he disagrees. Just one question though: why were the firemen wearing  underpants?   Cassianto Talk   20:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's all part of the well-known Dutch tolerance to people doing odd things like that Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:39, 6 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).  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)
 * I agree with your analysis of the guideline. But that's all it is: a guideline. How do you reconcile this article with BLP1E, specifically criteria No. 1: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Coretheapple (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This is better said than any other keep !vote IMO. So "what he said". Hobit (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Even this Wikipedia page has been in the news. News.com.au (republication of: NY Post), and Daily Telegraph plus . And more coverage on her     .  Dysklyver  10:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:109PAPERS. One story recycled by lazy journalists to fill space doesn't create notability. - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:109PAPERS states "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. That person should instead be covered in the article about the event itself." For the sake of the discussion, what do you suggest the new article should be titled?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That has been answered a few times before: List of female American football players, where there is enough of an entry to cover all the "notable" elements of Ms Neher. SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A gentle reminder that this is a BLP of a minor and it's not unlikely that said minor is reading this discussion. Your scare quotes could easily be read as insulting to her though I understand that you were instead addressing arguments she meets WP:N). Hobit (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing insulting in referring to her encyclopaedic notability - indeed the use of quotes was to separate the encyclopaedic notability from the person; I have linked to the policy to clarify the point. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've no doubt about what you meant. Just pointing out how it could be interpreted.  Thank you for making the change, I think it helps. Hobit (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I I’ve heard it all now.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   17:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per the very good arguments to do so.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   12:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the above stated arguements of SchroCat minus the profanity and also per the learned . Antonioatrylia (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody really cares whether agree with the profanity or not.  Please stick to the reasons for the deletion of this article, alone.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   12:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and the arguments above, particularly SchroCat, Reyk and DGG. There's nothing here that merits its own article. One event puffed up out of all proportion and ref-bombed. As Betty Logan and SchroCat point out, everything that needs to be said can be, and in my opinion already is, said at List of female American football players. -- Begoon 13:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Why does it matter that her notablility it is for 'one event'? Guy Goma is known for only one event please bear in mind the third paragraph of WP:OSE rather than just linking to it . There are 25 references including NPR, USA Today, Miami Herald and ABC News. She is notable by default. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , she is not notable by default. She is nothing more than a high school student who done some athletics in-between studies, who may or may not have broken some obscure high school record. And that’s it. Please familiarise yourself with the opening line of the lead section: note the words “some credit”.  We can’t even bring ourselves to definitely claim that this is the case.  Who are these “some”? Fellow students? Teachers? Friends? Media?   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   10:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the opening lines, but they make no difference. If footage emerges which proves she didn't throw a touchdown then the lead section would read: but she would still be notable due to the coverage. It is notability rather than meritoriousness that Wikipedia concerns itself with. If it was meritoriousness we would have to get rid of all of the porn stars. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS. See WP:BLP1E for your initial question about one event, and WP:109PAPERS for the 25 references (yes, several others have already commented that the number of references in the article is because it's been abysmally written to try and get round AfD hurdles). The fact we still have an article on Goma just shows that some people have no idea what an encyclopaedia is, and mistake it for the "And also" slots at the end of news reports. In relation to "we have Gomer, so what about..." please see WP:WHATABOUTX, part of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.- SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * we should all start an article about ourselves then until it’s proven to be complete bollocks?  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   13:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * maybe not WP:SOCIALMEDIA. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That’s precisely my point and it’s essentially what you’ve just said; saying: “who some credit as the first female in the state of Florida to throw a touchdown in a high school game” is about as reliable as suggesting that ”some credit” her with walking on the moon. Are  actually even thinking about what you type?   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   14:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:DONTBEADICK  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   16:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * N is trivially met, but WP:BLE1E also has to be met. That has a strong consensus.  The issue those of us on the keep side are raising is that there is no "1 event" unless you want to call a sports season "one-event" (which flies in the face of WP:NSPORTS and the general definition of "event").  Hobit (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of this is 'eye of the beholder' stuff, but here is my take:-
 * The third part of WP:BLP1E has not been met IMO.
 * WP:NOTNEWS - I don't feel that this article is trying to be news.
 * WP:109PAPERS - The fact that this article is now subject to press coverage Holly Neher won a place in history, and her own Wikipedia page, with just one throw means that her notability is not temporary.
 * WP:WHATABOUTX - I already said that the third paragraph of WP:OSE applies. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What a rather bizarre post. BLP1E has been met. WP:NOTNEWS was a reference to your argumentum ad absurdum about "Holly Neher is an American high school athlete falsely credited as the first female in the state of Florida to throw a touchdown in a high school game". Despite your claim to the contrary, there would be even less justification to have an article
 * WP:109PAPERS - I think you need to actually read it, as you're parroting the reasons why duplicated references endlessly recycled by lazy journalists do not generate notability.
 * WP:WHATABOUTX is part of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It has fuck all to do with OSE, despite your attempts to make it so. You could cite as many other policies, guidelines and essays that you want, but arguments to avoid in deletion discussions really is the key in an Argument for Deletion discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "You could cite as many other policies, guidelines and essays that you want, but arguments to avoid in deletion discussions really is the key in an Argument for Deletion discussion."
 * The only policy I mentioned was "the third paragraph of WP:OSE" in my OP. The following were all cited by yourself in your post above: WP:NOTNEWS; WP:BLP1E; WP:109PAPERS and WP:WHATABOUTX. I just took them one by one and replied to them. If you don't agree with the assessment then that's cool but the list above was raised by yourself. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please not that since October 8, the weaker "who some credit" cited above now reads "is widely considered" per WP:NPOV: She is widely considered the first female in the state of Florida to throw a touchdown in a high school tackle football game.—Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep There are enough sources to pass WP:GNG. All other criteria are therefore irrelevant, we go by notability here. Smartyllama (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we don't. See WP:BLP1E. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Aaaaand let's just ignore what GNG actually says; "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In this case; NOTNEWS with a touch of INDISCRIMINTATE. Meeting GNG does not suddenly mean that all other criteria are irrelevant, let alone that they are therefore irrelevant. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * [Off topic thread moved to the talk page. SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)]
 * Specifically here, not sure why it was moved though. Perhaps admin can put it back and collapse it? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm going to respond to the WP:109PAPERS argument. I do not believe this has merit because 1) the essay specifically applies to information "reported in the news just once on a single day, or over a period of a few days, and then are forgotten" -- this story has gone well past "a few days" as evidenced by this, which is dated today (10/6/2017) for a subject that has been brewing for well over a month (since 8/17/2017 in major newspapers).  2) The same "story" in each newspaper has been printed, but is far from the "identically word-for-word in each paper" threshold that the essay calls for.  Sure, some papers just took the story off the wire, some embellished it a little, and some wrote independent articles from their own research.  It's a good essay, but I do not believe it applies here under its own definition.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Slightly re-worked copy (by journalists who don't want to be accused of plagiarism or copyright infringement) would and should fall under the guideline. As has been said above, I think that the same story repeated for a month should also come under this. No new angles or information is in the latest "report" (for which read "example of 'churnalism' as it most lazy") which is just another parroting of the first. This all still falls within the spirit of the guideline. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That assertion just does not hold true. For example, the first three articles referenced in the article from ABC News, USA Today, and Miami Herald all have three different authors (Katie Kindelan, Walter Villa, and  Andre C. Fernandez).  The  articles are completely different in text.  And that's just the first three.  The next two (Allentown and Guam) appear to be picks from the wire, but are included to indicate the widespread coverage.  Certainly many of the other articles are different because they support different facts (like the Miama Dolphins/RISE award and other events that occured since the publication of the first few articles in the reference list.  They are not "slightly re-worked copy" at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, my assertion holds true, but you are being rather over-literal. One small and essentially unnotable story has been distributed by the wires and subsequently picked up by several papers. Most of those papers have either printed the wire copy, or rehashed exactly the same copy into something that is ostensibly the same. Just because some papers have different policies on how to handle wire copy (or handle it in different ways depending on how busy they are), does not get away from the fact that it is the ostensibly the same story one-event story slightly rehashed in several places. We're still there with rehashed stories that deal with one insignificant event that may not even be the first time it has happened. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you make such an accusation?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ? SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are essentially accusing the authors of the source material of plagiarism (copying each other's work). What basis do you have for that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, FFS... I have said absolutely nothing of the sort. The whole purpose of wire stories is to provide copy for news sources that cannot send reporters to every corner of the world, or cover every tiny event. Their stories are reproduced either in toto, or re-written, either entirely or only partially. This isn't plagiarism, it is all part and parcel of how wire news services work, and it's written into the contracts they have with the news organisations. See News agency, which covers some of this, before you accuse me of anything again. As I said in May last edit summary: take it down a peg or two (or three): there is no accusation in what I have said. - SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I apologize for my misunderstanding. It is still correct that there are many stories about the subject that are far beyond the standards set by WP:109PAPERS.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I won't say too much as most of it has been said above already. But suffice it to say this is very much a case of WP:BLP1E. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I am politely asking both to refrain from any further comments on this AfD. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ...and you are?  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   18:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case, he is someone with a very good idea. Both individuals have beaten their respective horses to death and there is nothing to be gained from further repetition of the same talking points. Lepricavark (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * they've "finished beating their respective horses to death" then I'm sure they're big enough and ugly enough to work that out for themselves. They don't need someone to pontificate from the sidelines.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   21:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Leaning toward changing my !vote to Keep due to the clear and pertinent agruement put fo forth by that WP:GNG has been met, and that all else is irrelevant.   Antonioatrylia (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you should read what Mr rnddude has written; what Smartyllama has said isn't actually correct. - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List_of_female_American_football_players. There are long-standing exclusionary standards regarding WP:MILL coverage of high-school athletes; if anyone objects to those they should start a discussion at WP:NSPORT or WP:VPP.  Of course, due to her gender, Neher isn't entirely WP:MILL.  However, the claims of notability appear to be largely puffery; she's neither the first female high-school quarterback nor the first female football player in Florida, merely the "first female high-school quarterback to throw a touchdown in Florida" or something.  In this type of situation, contemporaneous newspaper coverage isn't a secondary source, but a primary source.  There is a perfectly-reasonable redirect target for WP:UNDUE-compliant coverage of whatever she does that is actually notable, so redirect. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see Administrators'_noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Already closed, where the closing included the statement, "...(Cassianto) has not replied but also has not further edited the AFD. If Cassianto's behaviour in the AFD becomes an issue, then it can be brought back up. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC) " Unscintillating (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Drmies post at the Admin notice board alerted me to this - If we had an article on Women in American Football, as we should, I would say merge there or a sub-article on Female students in American High School Football - but as per WP:WHYN we don't yet have a biography - for now, merge to the List article (Please, someone create the Women's article, at least). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLP1E, NOTNEWS, etc. This is a recentist topic without any clear evidence of lasting importance. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If secondary sources (i.e., not news sources) keep covering her through the coming months and years, then maybe we have an article topic. I'm opposed to redirecting for the same reason. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLP1E and NOTNEWS, and all the reference padding in the article and attempted bludgeoning of "delete" voters here won't change that. --Calton | Talk 03:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - congratz to the young lady for being the first female HS student to throw a touchdown pass in a HS game in the state of Florida, possibly, maybe, we don't know. One of our core policies is verifiability. For the encyclopaedia this means that the information in the encyclopaedia comes from a realiable source. In the real world, and the Oxford dictionary, this means that something is able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified. In this case, we know that this is not possible. Instead we present the idea that it might be true. More importantly, we largely base her notability on this unverifiable claim - actually we base her notability wholly on that claim because that act alone is why we have an article on her. This article expands her notability by claiming, cited, but, once again unverifiably, that she might be the first starting female quaterback in Florida or even U.S. history. Indeed, reading this article, I can tell that it's been peacocked to try and assert notability; Neher's accomplishments put her on the national stage and are held out as majors step toward involvement of female athletes and coaches in the sport of American football as well as an inspiration to female athletes everywhere. We are an encyclopaedia, not Sunrise, stick to the facts. Now, I did note above the mentions that there is some coverage of her prior to this possible achievement. Yes, I read that, it was the very definition of notnews. The fact that we need to write into the article that Guam and Australia caught wind of all this is also indiscriminately collected trivia. So what I'm left with in this article is notability based on unverified claims that are supported by peacockery and trivia. That really just leaves me with the one-event argument to tackle. Fascinatingly enough, I can't support the assertion that this BLP fits BLP1E's three conditions. 1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. She received coverage, notnews coverage but still, prior to the event. So that can't be in the context of one-event. The post event coverage, however, both can and is. 2) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. She's not low-profile right now, but, in a year's time? Probably until college assuming she goes into college football. Lastly, If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. To the entire article I ask, and the significance of this is? no, no, no, not what the significance of it is if it's true, what the significance is regardless of it being or not being true. If the two notability granting claims are false, then what significance does this have? I'm left with none. So, because the claims to notability are impossible to verify, because her prior coverage falls straight under not news, because this article is peacocking in the hopes of asserting notability, and because a significant portion of the article is trivia, I have to support deletion. Note: the last two just support the position to delete, they are not reasons to delete in themselves. In a few years time, assuming she keeps this up, she will be, beyond a shadow of a doubt, notable. As it stands today, she isn't. Not to mention that she comes nowhere near meeting notability for sports; [h]ave appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues - highschool football is not one of those listed. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My sense is that you don't understand either WP:V or WP:N. WP:V doesn't require we only include things that are known for certain.  It doesn't even say anything close to that. We don't know the Jesus existed.  Does that mean we shouldn't include anything about him?  We don't know that the Wright brothers were the first in flight either.  Should we remove that article?   Further, the very definition of notability on Wikipedia is that there are significant sources that cover the topic.  We have those in spades.  There do exist reasonable arguments that can be made for the deletion of this article (though I disagree with them), but because what she has done doesn't seem important enough to you isn't one of those arguments.  In fact we have a whole well-regarded essay talking about how that isn't how we make decisions here: WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Hobit (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You've addressed none of my arguments here. I took the real world definition of verifiability and ignored WP:V (IAR basically). Indeed, I implied that it did meet WP:V per; [f]or the encyclopaedia this means that the information in the encyclopaedia comes from a realiable source. Ah yeah, there's tons of those. I also didn't make any form of a notability argument. My arguments were; unverifiable (not WP:V), NOTNEWS (which negates WP:N), INDSCRIMINATE (for the randomly collected trivia which really should be NOTEVERYTHING), with a touch of NSPORTS right at the end (I didn't realize at the time that we had one for high-school students, though Tony Ballioni dispatched that argument himself via prolonged coverage). [B]ut because what she has done doesn't seem important enough to you isn't one of those arguments <- Eh, no, never said that. If she isn't the first to do it, it didn't happen. There is no significance. No reason to have an article. If she is the first who did it, then it did happen and has some significance. The Wright brothers argument is also entirely fallacious, their achievements whether first or not, matter because they had a lasting impact on the world. They wrote the lift equation still in use today, for example. As for Jesus, keep, but, only as a figure of historical importance, otherwise delete. This girl, may or may not have done something noteworthy. I have a higher standard of expectation than may have as do most of the other delete !votes here. Would you like me to suggest that you don't understand WP:NOT? as a return favour. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It sounds like we are actually in agreement. You are making an IAR argument, rather than one based on WP:N or WP:V.  You are also arguing NOTNEWS (which I don't think was plain the first time around).  Though I disagree with you and claim this mostly falls under "IDONTLIKEIT", it is a good and quite reasonable IAR argument.  You were just using words that are part of the Wikipedia jargon while meaning the common-use definition of the words, so I found that confusing.  Thanks for clarifying.  Hobit (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can understand that using the common definition of words and wikijargon in the same comment can lead to confusion. Especially given that I reference WP:V in the first sentence and then "real world" verifiability in the very next one. I tend to link and ALLCAPS wikijargon, but, it looks weird in a sentence so I was linking without allcaps. I'll avoid doing that in the future. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This fails guidelines of verifiability. Wikipedia needs to make assentions based on reliable sources. Wikipedia is also not news. This is why we should shy away from covering events that are immediate. There are lots of unverified claims made about Neher driven by the mindset of news, and the willingness of journalists, especially in this day and age, to run up stories. I have seen lots of totally false claims sourced to newspaper writers who didnt bother to source their information. In this case we have the added problem that people are not even making false claims per se, they are hedging their bets. The problem is that high school football is not covered in a deep enough way or well documented enough to make the claims in this article easy to back. Lacking truly scholarly sources discussing Neher, I feel we should not create an article based on just one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Trying to understand your rationale. Not familiar with the term "assentions" as something we do here at Wikipedia, or otherwise in the English language.  Can you clarify?  Also, can you identify which policy or guideline it is that you believe requires "truly scholarly sources" (as opposed to WP:RS) as an element of notability in this case? Cbl62 (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to doubt its verifiability. It's been covered in numerous reliable sources. It's obviously true. Do you have an argument on actual notability, or is this just another one of your highly questionable delitionist votes? Smartyllama (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Commewnt The attempts to attack people above for "insulting" this minor totally misunderstand BLP policies. BLP policies should say we delete if there is any debate if the person is notable. If saying they are "notable" is a potential insult, that they could take exception to if they read this discussion, than it is an argument that the article should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, assuming you are referring to me, it wasn't an attack. It was a polite reminder.  I tried for a very polite reminder.  An attack would have been to start shouting "BLP".  Secondly, part of the problem is that on Wikipedia, Notability is a term of art that means there is significant coverage in multiple independent sources, which is different than what the English word means.  So it is easy for outsiders to get confused when we use the term and think we are saying that what they did was not worthy of note. Finally, it _is_ a term of art.  She is well past the notability requirements--the sources are multiple, non-trivial in depth and independent.  There are _other_ reasons one could argue to delete this article, but notability isn't one of them.  Hobit (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The aftermath section is full of unsupported assertions and original research. Specifically, the claims that the actions of people such as Buchanan in Hawaii have anything to do with the actions of Neher in any way is not supported by articles on Buchanan. This is a standard example of peacocking to try to make a subject more significant than they are. We have very, very stringent rules on high school sports figure notability for a reason. High school accomplishments only very, very rarely are enough to make someone notable. The lack of any reliable coverage on Neher in October says to me that there is no sign that the coverage is more than a passing fad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep largely per David Eppstein above, a sound argument that was never refuted. This is a notable first in a sport and has received coverage well beyond the routine or local Man Bites Dog human interest stories. TheValeyard (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NHSPHSATH is a requisite, but not a sufficient one. WP:BLP1E also needs to be satisfied: WP:BLP1E lays out three criteria that must be met and very thoroughly demonstrates that it is too soon to objectively assess the coverage of Neher against the second criterion and that the third criterion simply hasn't been met as yet. You make a fair point that nobody has convincingly refuted WP:NHSPHSATH, but both WP:NHSPHSATH and WP:BLP1E need to be met and nobody has as yet convincingly argued that they have been. Betty Logan (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Parroting the bad responses of other deletion-minded editors at everyone who wishes to keep the article won't get you very far. BLP1E does not apply here, as there was coverage of the subject before the TD pass, coverage which only increased, nationally, when the TD "event" took place. TheValeyard (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was addressing a specific flaw in your response. Considering only a single requisite for inclusion and supporting it as if it were a wholly sufficient condition for inclusion is hardly the most persuasive argument put forward in this discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no flaw in my argument. You keep trying to make a laughably bad case for BLP1E, an assertion that has been thoroughly punctured and left for dead. TheValeyard (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you've both got my arguments wrong here. My !vote was against the BLP1E assertion. Articles should not meet BLP1E; We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met. If BLP1E is met, then that is an argument to delete. If BLP1E is not met, then that is an argument to keep. As point 1 is clearly not met, point 2 is not currently met, but, point 3 is met, BLP1E is not met and so isn't a valid reason to delete. My main focus with regards to deletion was verifiability with some mentions of NOTNEWS and INDISCRIMINATE. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I misinterpreted your answer. I thought you were arguing that it possibly did apply because doubt exists in the sources that there was indeed a second event, at least in the context that would make it notable. That would seem to go to the heart of debate if you ask me. You made some great points anyway so it's a tad unfair to categorise your reply as a "bad response", even if it was badly "parroted"! Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks and it's ok. I understand where you might have misinterpreted me. It's actually the pre-event coverage, the actually verifiable (she did join a squad) if non-notable NOTNEWS one (she's not the first to join a squad and this is hardly significant), that negates BLP1E for me. Events 1 and 2 are both unverifiable per the FHSAA's own statements, so for me personally, whether they are even events is questionable. Hmm, guess that leaves the one pre-event event. Heh. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - Please refrain from stating my motivations or thoughts for me. I neither appreciate it, nor are you likely to do them any justice as you are not in my head - I refer to your deletion-minded comment which is not at accurate. I made arguments for both sides and then made my stance. Please read my BLP1E comments, as it is very, very clear that you have not done so; I can't support the assertion that this BLP fits BLP1E's three conditions. I.e., I do not support deletion on the conditions of BLP1E. I get it, my comments are tl;dr, but, if you don't read them, don't comment on them. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not, at any time, address you, bro. So, get your dander up, and your reading glasses, and direct them at someone who cares. TheValeyard (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Betty Logan only mentioned my !vote and she's only commented to you about !votes, so your bad responses and deletion-minded comments were directed at me implicitly. Beyond that, the rest can go back in where it came out. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So if someone comments generally about bad editors making bad deletion rationales, and you assume (you know what they say about assuming) they mean you... Deep down, you know your argument is meritless, and are just on the "delete for the sake of deletion" bandwagon. TheValeyard (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Try re-reading. Or get a dictionary and find out what an implication is. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your guilt complex is not my responsibility, brah. Reading glasses, they even come ion hipster tints nowadays. TheValeyard (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per Mr rnddude. We don't know that it's a notable first at all... the sources are not sure, so we can't be sure ... so it's a waffle of an article that's been puffed up to look more important. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Saw this referenced on AN. This is clearly covered by BLP1E. However, that policy is contradicted by the notability guideline for high school athletes. The solution is to tweak the guideline to make it consistent with policy. Simple. We can't have articles based on one friggin throw of a ball in Florida by some high school kid. I've commenced a discussion on the guideline's talk page, and interested parties are encouraged to participate. Coretheapple (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Should we acknowledge the first woman to pass a touchdown pass in each of the fifty states? How about the first to rush in for a TD? It's far too trivial and narrow an accomplishment, and there was bound to be some woman that would be the first to have made this if it wasn't her. If she ends up with a professional career, we can cover this there. --M ASEM (t) 15:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply because it requires three conditions and these are not satisfied. WP:GNG does apply because we have lots of sources.  Articles about sports people have a low threshold for inclusion -- see Chitty (cricketer) -- and this subject looks well-covered by comparison.  Andrew D. (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * BLP1E does not apply Many delete !votes are citing WP:BLP1E, but it does not apply here. One of the condition to use BLP1E states: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event."  However, Neher has received significant, non-routine, independent coverage for at least 3 distinct events already: 1. trying out for the boys' team ("Holly Neher is 5-foot-2 girl and isn't shying from playing quarterback" August 17, 2017. USA Today), 2. Throwing a touchdown pass ("Holly Neher won a place in history, and her own Wikipedia page, with just one throw". September 5, 2017. News.com.au) and 3. Becoming a starter ("High school QB reflects on becoming the 1st woman to start in Florida history". October 6, 2017. ABC News)—Bagumba (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The ABC News article shows in the snippet that it is reflecting on an event a month ago. This source shows that notability is still increasing, so that notability is still a moving target.  The arguments to merge and delete as per WP:IAR have enough merit to consider, but IMO they don't overcome our WP:Deletion policy and our WP:Editing policy, and partial deletion doesn't leave a path forward for what will happen if notability continues to increase.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Eqach individual step in become a player on the team is not a separate event.  DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not? Are you saying a player playing an entire season and getting coverage for it is somehow one event?  That's a major change to our athlete criteria.  Is being a movie star "one event"?  I generally think an event is just that, a single event.  A season of play isn't that.  Hobit (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain how she is allegedly famous for only one event then.—Bagumba (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course BLP1E applies. The argument that the routine events of a single football season (trying out - throwing a touchdown - making the starting line-up) don't make up a single event is fallacious. We might as well make the argument that taking part on a talent show over a few episodes represents multiple events because the contestant sang a different song each week. The question you need to ask yourself is when the event/events are viewed in years to come, will they be remembered as separate or as part of a single, coherent whole? For anybody uninvolved, Holly Neher's football season is a single entity, which (interesting as it is) still falls under what we understand by BLP1E. --RexxS (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You've already sabotaged your own argument by referring to them as "events", plural. The subject received coverage in reliable sources, coverage that went beyond normal, routine, or purely local. Deletion-happy editors around here sure are a funny bunch. TheValeyard (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not deletion-happy, and if you were to read, sonny, you'd notice my !vote is to merge the content into the appropriate article. I blame the teachers for the illiteracy. Single-minded pedants like you have no concept of what the intention of BLP1E is: it doesn't matter if a single event – like a girl gets to play for a high-school american football team – extends over multiple individual events (matches); it's still all part of the same thing. You're going for exactly the same argument as I deflated above: there's no difference between a player's season and a contestant appearing on consecutive weeks of a TV show. We don't write BLPs about the player or the contestant if that's all they have done that is notable. Yes of course, Neher received coverage in multiple sources, likely enough to pass GNG. But GNG is only one hurdle: Neher received attention for one thing and one thing only: she played american football at high-school, and BLP1E says we have better places to report that coverage than a BLP. --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge: As outlined at WP:N, for a subject to become a stand-alone article it has three hurdles to pass: (i) it passes our definition of notability – passes WP:GNG and isn't excluded by WP:NOT; (ii) it isn't a BLP1E which would be more appropriately covered within a broader article; (iii) editors agree that the topic should have a stand-alone article. In this case, all the conditions for WP:BLP1E apply: all of the coverage is about Neher's nascent career in gridiron; there is no indication that Neher is likely to receive coverage beyond that narrow reach; and {iii} a female playing gridiron may be a novelty, but that doesn't make it significant. On balance, although a BLP of Neher is conceivable, we would be better to discuss her achievement in the context of List of female American football players as proposed by, particularly as the High School section notes "more than 1,900 girls who played high school football in 2016". --RexxS (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So delete and merge...that sounds like it is delete and redirect, and add attribution for the already-merged material. Please state a reason for deleting the article's history.  See WP:IGNORINGATD for more information.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read MOS:LISTGAP and learn how to indent your replies. My !vote doesn't just sound like "delete and redirect", it is "delete and redirect". Delete the content and redirect the title. There's no reason for me to state a reason for deleting the article's history, because I'm not suggesting that. The history of the redirect contains all of the article history – didn't you realise that? If there is any further encyclopedic information in Holly Neher at the time it is converted to a redirect, then it should be merged into the target article, of course. Hence delete and merge. And please don't quote essays at me. They do nothing but show how weak your argument is. Clear enough now? --RexxS (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I read MOS:LISTGAP, now I suggest you need to do some reading to come up to speed on deletion theory, and that essay you refuse to read is a crash course. Use of the word "delete" means that you want the closer to use admin tools.  The !vote you've described, as further confirmed by your new comment above, is Merge, or perhaps Redirect with option to merge.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic concerns an event from just over a month ago—if the pass had been unsuccessful there would be no basis for an article. The flurry of excitement since the single event might be the basis for an article that collects similar milestones with analysis from secondary sources showing the long-term significance of the events, but the Aftermath section currently in the article is wildly out of place. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You do realize we have a number of high-quality national-level sources from before the pass, yes? WP:N was met before that, so we did have a basis without said pass.  Hobit (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm only replying to this because you've asked the question several times and been ignored (I've been not commenting here to try to conserve space in a messy AfD), but the coverage before the pass is still the same event: one high school football season. That's all she's done. 1E applies here. Even if you consider each step desperate, NHSPHSATH would exclude her because two months is not prolonged coverage. Anyway, hope all is well with you :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply (seriously). The NHSPHSATH case can be made, though I'd argue strongly that the intent of that paragraph is to exclude routine coverage and it doesn't anticipate a high-school student receiving national and international coverage.  But no, I really don't think there is a case for a season of football being a single event.  As far as I know, we don't exclude actors because their only significant work was a season of TV.  Nor do we exclude athletes because they only did something significant for a single season.  Quite the opposite, if she'd played a single point on a professional team, we wouldn't even be having this discussion at all. Hobit (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - as Mrs May said, “nothing has changed”. I read the article again and it reminded me of ’s work on Tara Teng, obsessive documentation of a young person, and that’s not a good thing. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Incubate. I really don't see the rationale for deleting this outright. It's not a 1E situation because she had coverage before she threw the TD pass, and is/was notable on several accounts. There's 7 weeks of coverage already in the article. We don't know what is coming next and it would be inappropriate to delete the article prematurely, in my opinion. At the very least, this should be merged or redirected instead of deleted, because we might have to reconstruct the whole thing at some point. Softlavender (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, High school athlete. Too trivial for encyclopaedia. Not everything that is in the papers deserves an article in Wikipedia. There is a reason we have WP:NHSPHSATH. First female (maybe!) to throw a touchdown in a high school game in the state of Florida? Is that the claim to notability? Are we going to have 50 such articles? And then 50 for each other level of the game? And the same again for first females to kick field goals?. Or is it the "first female to start at quarterback in Broward County"? So we can expect another 3006 of these?. And another 3007 for females starting at Center? And then do we have one for every first transsexual in every county?, every first gay?...,    Coverage  is fairly standard hype for sports coverage at this level.     Her 15 minutes of fame is already covered at List of female American football players. WP:TOOSOON If she goes on and does something truly notable in her football careeer then it is time for a stand alone article, but throwing a touchdown pass in a high school game is not particularly notable. Club Oranje T 13:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and redir to List of female American football players, and build a good entry there, per WP:NOT and WP:BLP1E; I don't by the "BLP1E doesn't really apply" handwaving. The analyses I see above of why it does apply are more convincing, the material is terrible, and this does have more of the character of event coverage than biography. Should this person become more notable later, I have no prejudice against a full article, but this is not the first female American football player, so there isn't even an incidental historicity claim to make here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  22:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. NOTNEWS.  A high school football game news flash.  The article is Reference bombed, but there is no substance to support a full biography on the child.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the WP:MAD problem, what should the closer do about the merged material? Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Protect to the target, until solved, or indefinitely. It's not as if the content is actually problematic.  The BLP problem will come in the future, when, on the basis of one throw, a young lady has her personal life randomly added and removed from a Wikipedia article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Should we consider your above "Delete" to be redacted?—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, I have not examined the need for attribution of a merge somewhere. Someone says there is no problem.  If there is no attribution problem, then delete.  If some attribution is required to be preserve, then redirect and protect, and this should be considered a Pseudo-deletion by redirection.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The closer does not have to do anything in this regard. The two sentences that were copied over were contributed by Paulmcdonald and corrected the page history to account for the copyright attribution. Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes: there are no copyright issues with this deletion. There was one contributor of the prose that was copy and he has been attributed, fulfilling the CC-BY-SA 3.0 requirements. This was such a small merge that identifying the exact author of the text that was copied was very easy. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If he was ok with keeping the merged material, what happened to a delete and redirect? He might want the merged material deleted, and since the child was mentioned, he might want the title salted.  Since delete goes against WP:ATD policy, what was the WP:IAR reason to delete the edit history?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of female American football players per the editing policy WP:PRESERVE: "Instead of removing content from an article, consider ... Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge." I also have no problem if this is kept ; the notability guideline WP:WHYN is met, specifically "we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." There's enough non-routine coverage about the person, not just the events, that discuss her childhood and the influence of her mom's battle with cancer. BLP1E arguments are unconvincing, especially those combining multiple events (each of which received signifiant, non-routine coverage) to one season.  PRESERVE at a minimum.—Bagumba (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm working hard not to badger everyone, but this one sucked me in. Could you explain how the GNG isn't met?  We have numerous sources solely on the subject that are independent of the subject.  I don't think anyone above has claimed the GNG isn't met.  Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hogwash, we have one source, that was tweaked but was still the same source, about one specific thing the subject did, and absolutely no noticeable coverage in any other context.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly. News articles written about current/single events are almost universally primary sources. WP:GNG is clear that sources should be secondary sources, not primary, as primary sources do not demonstrate notability. For further explanation of what is a primary source, see WP:PRIMARY and WP:USEPRIMARY. Almost all (if not every one) sources currently in the article are considered primary by our guidelines. WP:GNG requires multiple secondary sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A newspaper article written by someone who wasn't there and is instead interviewing others, is, by definition, a secondary source. This idea that news sources are primary sources is a bit silly. Hobit (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep well referenced article, meets the GNG. gidonb (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Per the guideline WP:NOTTEMPORARY: Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. However, many delete !votes are asking for "prolonged" coverage of months or even years.—Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They are mistaken, aren't they? Instead of asking for "ongoing coverage", they should be asking for NOTNEWS coverage, for coverage that is not simply fact-reporting, but proper secondary sources that do commentary, analysis and opinion from a historical perspective.  News reporting does not meet the GNG because from a historical perspective news reports are not secondary sources.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in Notability that requires a "historical" perspective. The presumption is that 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.  In sports, primary sources such as play-by-play gamelogs do not establish notability, nor do casual name mentions in a game summary that was going to be written as part of routine coverage. That is what WP:NOTNEWS refers to, or the equivalent of a cat being rescued from a tree article. A player having multiple articles of significant depth by beat writers or columnists where they are the primary subject and the subject of commentary is not routine, and is a secondary source.—Bagumba (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually there is; WP:ANYBIO, which is the part of subject specific guideline for notability of people, and which clearly applies here as it is a biographical article, clearly states The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.. Many Wikipedia s seem to think if there are a few newspaper articles it passes GNG and therefore it deserves an article, but GNG is just the broad brush start point and Notability (people) is the actual guideline that should be followed. Club Oranje T 07:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, WP:ANYBIO is part of Notability (people), while I was referring to Notability. That being said, we don't necessarily require history books. Reading footnote No. 8 to ANYBIO, it says: A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers.  Female sportspeople should not be held to a higher standard.—Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Requires" is an overly strong word to pull from a guideline. An encyclopedia is an historiographical document, the policy on sources is found at WP:PSTS, and the policy points to secondary source (mainspace article) use.  The problem with the multiple articles is that they all say the same thing and they recount the same event.  You say "significant coverage"?  I can't agree.  Breathless excitement about a brief event, in the backdrop of the significant event of females playing football.  When the excitement dies down, with the passage of just a little time, it will then become obvious that these beat writers and columnists made no transformational contribution, and that everything written is a primary source.   I suspect that in time, the event may be notable in terms of the breaking of gender barriers, but collectively with other similar events.  That does not mean that Holly is personally Wikipedia-Notable.  The event received a burst of news coverage due to her being a young lady, not due to here being Holly.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can respect if you don't believe significant coverage exists here. It's a subjective call either way.  My objection is with those who !voted delete that were asking for "prolonged" coverage, which is a higher bar than WP:NOTTEMPORARY.—Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The "prolonged" coverage element is built into WP:NHSPHSATH. It applies only to high school athletes. Cbl62 (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a corollary to WP:SUSTAINED (which is part of WP:N, not GNG). WP:SUSTAINED says: "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Again, it falls back to people famous for one event. However, the essay WP:BLP2E is implicitly being invoked in this AfD, when the essay itself says: "It is a misconception of some editors that WP:BLP1E can be extended to two (or more) events."—Bagumba (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment <BLP violation removed> John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please try to be nice. Neher is, I am sure, a very nice person with a great future, and we wish her all the best in future endeavours, unencumbered by a Wikipedia article based upon some excitement from an excellent play in her high school football game.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, your comments above referring to this young high school student as an <BLP violation removed above and as repeated here> are utterly condemnable and have no place on Wikipedia. Cbl62 (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The explanatory supplement to the WP:Deletion policy, WP:Merge and delete, states in oldid=762419377:
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"

Unless there is a particular reason to delete a redirect, admins should feel free to interpret "Merge and delete" votes as "Merge." A new editor may make such a vote without understanding the licensing requirements; this can be safely read as a merge vote. An advanced editor who wishes to argue for a merge and delete should make clear why the redirect would be unacceptable.
 * }
 * Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't have a problem with a redirect (that is my preference expressed above) but I don't know why you are so hung up on the "licensing requirements". The two sentences I copied over were added by the same author when the article was in his sandbox, and Tony has sorted out the copyright attribution. There is no requirement from what I can see that a redirect be retained purely on the grounds of licensing. My argument for retaining a redirect is that we can link directly to the list entry and by retaining the article history it can always be resurrected at a later date if circumstances necessitate that, but that's just a practical argument. Betty Logan (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't have a problem with a redirect (that is my preference expressed above) but I don't know why you are so hung up on the "licensing requirements". The two sentences I copied over were added by the same author when the article was in his sandbox, and Tony has sorted out the copyright attribution. There is no requirement from what I can see that a redirect be retained purely on the grounds of licensing. My argument for retaining a redirect is that we can link directly to the list entry and by retaining the article history it can always be resurrected at a later date if circumstances necessitate that, but that's just a practical argument. Betty Logan (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * SNOW keep Yeah, yeah... I said that to make a point, albeit nondisruptively. Every !vote above this one citing BLP1E and NHSPHSATH should be read by the closing administrator as "keep" opinions, because nothing about either supports deletion given the facts of this case.  I could care less about sports, and think High School (American) football should be banned as too injurious, but the fact is that this young lady made a legitimate first, has plenty of RS coverage about it.  Since policy does not support deletion, the obvious question is why so many editors do?  The obvious answers are not pleasant. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. BLP1E does not apply since she is notable for two events - first starter, and first touchdown pass. Now I know diddly about high school football, but I can read: Reliable sources are treating these as two different events, ("Neher made history on Friday night, becoming the first female quarterback to start a high school football game in the state of Florida ... made national headlines three weeks ago when she played in her first varsity game and threw a 42-yard touchdown pass" Miami Herald, for example) so we should too. --GRuban (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This person is only notable for begging born female. She has not made history. 80.13.151.45 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Interim tally. This AfD is a bit messy and unwieldy (110,000 bytes) so this is an attempt to summarize where the votes stand after one week:
 * 21 "Delete": TheGracefulSlick, DGG, EEng, Cullen328, SchroCat, Reyk, Cassianto, Antonioatrylia, Begoon, DJSasso, Mendaliv, Calton, Mr rnddude, John Pack Lambert, Ealdgyth, Coretheapple, Masem, Johnuniq, Ritchie333, Cluboranje, Onlyindeath
 * 13 "Keep": Hmlarson, Hobit, Paul McDonald, Lepricavark, Dysklyver, David Eppstein, The Vintage Feminist, Smartyllama, The Valeyard, Andrew D., gidonb, Jclemens, Gruban.
 * 4 "Redirect": Unscintillating, Betty Logan, power~enwiki, Bagumba ("Merge and redirect")
 * 3 "Delete and redirect": RexxS,  SMcCandlish, SmokeyJoe ("Delete"/"Redirect and protect")
 * 1 "Incubate" (or "at the very least merge and redirect"): Softlavender
 * I think that covers it so far. Cbl62 (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2017 (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.