Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher (2nd nomination)
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, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/verifiable and the Oxford dictionary, this means that something is {{tq|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 - Special:Diff/798536738|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; {{tq|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 (TV show)|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) {{tq|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) {{tq|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, {{tq|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; {{tq|have 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
— User:Mr, 04:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:PEACOCK||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:BLP1E||WP:NGRIDIRON (Wikipedia:Verifiability)