| Revision as of 17:20, 6 September 2017 editPaulmcdonald (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators40,528 editsm →Holly Neher: wordsmithing← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:01, 6 September 2017 edit undoSchroCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers113,340 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 14:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)</small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 14:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *''Comment on Deletion 8'' -- Deletion rule 8 in ] 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 ] 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.--] (]) 16:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC) | *''Comment on Deletion 8'' -- Deletion rule 8 in ] 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 ] 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.--] (]) 16:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :*The inability of journalists to check facts or check information one of the more depressing facts of modern society (and one reason we have ]). 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. - ] (]) 18:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *''Comment on "random factoids"'' -- The link in the "Random Factoids" argument directs to ]. This argument does not apply because 1: the article in question is not an indiscriminate list but is very ] 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.--] (]) 16:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC) | *''Comment on "random factoids"'' -- The link in the "Random Factoids" argument directs to ]. This argument does not apply because 1: the article in question is not an indiscriminate list but is very ] 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.--] (]) 16:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :*No, it's an indiscriminate "fact" (of dubious veracity), which is used to act as a coathook a pointless article. - ] (]) 18:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *''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.--] (]) 16:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC) | *''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.--] (]) 16:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :*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. - ] (]) 18:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:01, 6 September 2017
Holly Neher
- Holly Neher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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)
- 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)
- Keep "utterly non-notable" is not a reason to delete per Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Subject passes WP:GNG through significant national coverage in ABC News, Miami Herald, New York Post... it's not in the article as a source, but even Business Insider picked up the story as well as the New England Sports Network. Clearly far beyond the reach of a "local sports body".--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment on "random factoids" -- The link in the "Random Factoids" argument directs to Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)