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 no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete, and no reason to expect that further disucssion will yield any different outcome. BD2412T 01:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable person. The two references are a university press guide (unavailable) as the reference for statistics, and an obituary (which doesn't mention his one year of coaching an amateur football team -- the presumed claim of notability). Walt Yoder (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems he was often referred to as just "Vehmeier" or "Coach Vehmeier," see [1] for example. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An article on his wedding here – its a bit funny – he was married on December 12, 1912, 12 minutes and 12 seconds after 12, leading the Rev. O. Wilson to remark, "12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12." (struck as about the wrong Vehmeier) BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is odd, I read here that "F. Vehmier left last evening on No.2 for Grand Forks, where he has accepted a position as [f]ootball coach on the ...versity team. Mr. Vehmier is [a]n old star of the Wisconsin team." BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage of "Coach Vehmeier" from the Grand Forks Herald: [2] ("Coach Vehmeier, who has done such good work with the team this fall, left this noon on the Northern Pacific for his home in Illinois. Vehmeier came here after the season had started and took hold of what many people said was a hopeless task. Although the university squad was defeated in all but one of their games the state championship was won by that team, when the North Dakota agricultural team was beaten here last Wednesday. Vehmeier deserves much credit for the way he coached his men. There were twenty-two men in the picture taken this morning, including Coaches Vehmeier...") [3] (song about him, plus a few mentions of him in relation to his players, e.g. "the men were given a stiff workout, by Coach Vehmeier") [4] ("Coach Vehmeier Is Putting His Men Through Grilling Practices") [5] ("Coach Vehemeier Leaves with Fourteen Huskies Tuned For Action"). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just was able to find out that the person who coached UND in 1912 was not John Vehmeier – rather, it was Fred! See here which gives some biographical details (could be argued as SIGCOV) and mentions that the real coach played at Beloit College and on the freshman team at the U. of Illinois. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move to Fred Vehmeier). Vehmeier is very borderline, in my opinion. I lean on the keep side, just slightly, with this being my reasoning: Vehmeier was the full-time head coach at a major school (North Dakota is Division I and has won national championships in the past – and he would meet NCOLLATH if he coached in more modern times – though oddly the criteria only applies post-1957?) and I am not sure we have ever deleted a D-I head football coach before, and in terms of coverage we have this: a bit of a detailed article here (Freeport Journal-Standard) which could be argued as SIGCOV for a topic of this age and significance, plus lesser detailed coverage from The Daily Journal, The Post-Crescent and others, in addition to many different mentions (and even a song) in the Grand Forks Herald, one of which ([6]) goes into some detail on his coaching and could be weakly argued as SIGCOV; for this kind of case, I'd be willing to say so – and even if not, I do believe we have enough coverage to write a decent biography of Vehmeier and satisfy WP:NBASIC, which states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" (we have coverage from at least six newspapers, so it satisfies the "multiple independent" criteria). BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another significant source that I was able to find: [7] (from the Grand Forks Herald). My "keep" !vote is a bit stronger now, since we now have likely sigcov from the Freeport Journal-Standard and the Forks Herald, which satisfies WP:GNG (which only requires "multiple" of such sources – and two is multiple). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have improved the article to the point that it is now a very decent c-class biography. I've removed my "weak" statement from my !vote, and am now convinced that he is notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was not a "D-I coach", UND wasn't even part of the NCAA at that time (and wouldn't be for 10 years) and it would be almost 100 years before they got D-I status.
The Freeport and Grand Forks sources are local coverage of the "announcements" variety, which NOTNEWS specifically says does not count towards notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was not a "D-I coach" North Dakota is currently a Division I program – so I still think he has significance as their head coach. As for your NOTNEWS argument, it says For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events) – so I do not believe that would apply here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd say suggesting that coverage of when Vehmeier was hired should not count towards notability, even when it has enough depth to pass SIGCOV, while citing "NOTNEWS" is ludicrous – I've never seen a suggestion like that before, let alone it being consensus. And locality of coverage is absolutely irrelevant. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would NOTNEWS not apply -- it's coverage of an announcement that he was joining the UND program. NOTNEWS applies to everything, not just events, which is why it specifically notes the additional guideline for events. The two announcements, which are just 5 days apart (failing SUSTAINED), also aren't SIGCOV. Freeport is quite explicitly repeating an announcement Word has been received here from Fargo, N.D., announcing that Fred Vehmeier, of Dakota, Ill., a former Beloit College and University of Illinois foot ball star, has been appointed to the position of head coach of the University of North Dakota foot ball team. Mr. Vehmeier, according to the information received here, takes charge of the team at once. Mr. Vehmeier is well known in this city. He attended Beloit College two years and was a star athlete of that school. He also starred last season with the University of Illinois freshman team. Mr. Vehmeier had been traveling for the past few months in the interests of a large Harvester company. His new position is a lucrative one and the many friends of the young man will be please to learn of his good fortune.
The Grand Forks one especially is written in a very primary, promotional, personal tone Vehmeier arrived in Grand Forks last night. One look at him and you will be convinced that he knows something about athletics. In build he is a regular bull moose, broad of shoulder, deep chested and husky limbed. Any candidate for the university football team who gets a bit sassy can count on a beating, if this new coach is the man he looks to be. ... He is watching the Grand Forks and Grafton high schools battle this afternoon. The athletic board of control of the university selected the new man at a special meeting held this noon.
Locality of coverage and compliance with NOTNEWS are absolutely relevant to gauging encyclopedic merit, as has been noted in numerous AfDs. It's only been a month since Larry Green was closed, where essentially the exact type of sourcing was roundly dismissed in the closing statement: The discussion ultimately boils down to an argument about whether or not there is sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of this individual per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. The most substantive source that was presented during this discussion is a 6-sentence article in the evening edition of a local newspaper that mentions Green as a possible future candidate to play baseball for the Orioles, along with a very brief synopsis of his history. Calling this "significant coverage" strains credulity to its breaking point, and this sentiment was quite convincingly argued by a number of participants in the discussion.JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree that those sources should be discounted under NOTNEWS and you leaving massive WALLSOFTEXT is not going to get me to change my mind. We clearly have enough coverage here to write a biography, and we've got several articles over a period of several years discussing him, enough to pass NBASIC, which states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Deleting this very high quality article on a coach of a Division I football team would not in any way help the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, he was not in any way the coach of a D-I football team, and cobbling together a bunch of quotes and stats from local news does not make those items encyclopedic or compliant with NOT, much less "very high quality". And I really hope you don't think BASIC is met with a literal police blotter; one sentence reporting what Vehmeier said/felt; an announcement in a Freeport paper that he had passed through town that also bafflingly misrepresents his 1-4 record as "The team had a very successful season, winning a majority of the games played and finishing among the top with the universities of the northwest"; or a routine injury report in local press that appears alongside what is apparently serialized coverage of the town's warring choral societies... JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, your claim that University of North Dakota didn't become in an NCAA member until 1922 is almost certainly wrong and wholly irrelevant. The exact dates when schools joined in the NCAA in those days is obscure and appears to have been largely ignored by contemporary news coverage. North Dakota joined the newly-formed North Central Conference (NCC) in 1922, and the NCC eventually became associated with the NCAA, but I don't know when that happened, and it's unclear that the common NCC members all joined the NCAA in sync. I do recall an editor here (it might have been User:UW Dawgs) once finding an obscure document on the NCAA website that listed the years that various schools joined. What I recall from glancing at that document is that joining the NCAA seems to have had no functional impact on the level of a given team's competition in the early days (say pre-WWII). That's one of the reasons that for the time period before the NCAA first created divisions in 1956, we treat college football just as one unstratified bucket, e.g. 1912 college football season, 1955 college football season. Was North Dakota a major football team in 1912? Not really, but they did they play South Dakota, who in turn played Minnesota and Michigan, who certainly were major college football teams in 1912. North Dakota also played Minnesota each year from 1913 to 1916. Now, the main question at hand here, is Vehmeier notable, ultimately rests on specific coverage about him. But your suggestion that North Dakota was playing a lesser or illegitimate "sub-NCAA" brand of college football in 1912, and that should negatively impact the assessment Vehmeier's notably, is a faulty argument. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My statement was in direct rebuttal to the claim that the subject was a "D-I football coach", which suggested the level of college football UND was playing in 1912 was much more elite than it was (or would be for 100 years) and promoted an inappropriately positive assessment of Vehmeier's notability. JoelleJay (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first, what I think BeanieFan11 meant what that Vehmeier is a historical coach of a program that is now NCAA Division I. I'm confident he knows that "NCAA Division I" didn't exist in 1912. Second, you made a number of statements, twice implying that North Dakota gained some sort NCAA status specifically in 1922. Such statement belie a misunderstanding of the material and advance false notions about technicalities of NCAA membership and what it meant in the early 1900s. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(North Dakota is Division I and has won national championships in the past – and he would meet NCOLLATH if he coached in more modern times – though oddly the criteria only applies post-1957?) and I am not sure we have ever deleted a D-I head football coach before sure implies a misunderstanding of NCAA history, and if that's not the case it's a pretty blatant misrepresentation of Vehmeier's position since obviously the many more years ND spent in the College Division/D-II would be more applicable than comparing 1912 to 2008. As for ND's NCAA membership, I had looked up the list of original members here (p. 25) and, unless it joined as an independent member sometime between 1909 and 1912, I find it doubtful it belonged to the NCAA when Vehmeier coached. Not that that would be relevant since it clearly did not represent the level of prestige then that it does now. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know my football history, I was arguing that since he is a historical coach of a current Division I football team, that should help his case here, especially since he arguably meets GNG and NBASIC. But whether I know football history or not (which is quite the absurd statement; I've studied it for years, have written about 700 articles on historical football and have improved many others; although surprisingly your the third editor to say that I am not knowledgeable) is off-topic. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NCOLLATH makes it clear that being a D-I coach is only predictive of GNG post the 1957 creation of divisions (and he wouldn't have met this criterion for 50+ years after that, either), so his being a coach 45 years earlier is not a valid guideline-based consideration whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still think being the historical head coach of a current major program is important and should help his case. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do either of you have any explanation of how deleting this very high quality article on a historical head coach of a Division I football team improves the encyclopedia? Especially when he's got several in-depth sources, including one calling him "one of the best coaches in the United States"! (Grand Forks Herald) BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The small-town newspaper serving UND using flowery language to hype UND's new 24-year-old still-in-college coaching hire is a staggeringly clear example of why such local news should not be used for determining notability. JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was quite typical in that era for recent grads, grad students, and transfers who were in their early to mid 20s to be head coaches of college football teams. And sports coverage of that day was often written in a style that looks very flowery and goofy by today's standards. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources in this thread pass GNG. PK-WIKI (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG based on the significant non-routine coverage from the Grand Forks Herald and Freeport Journal-Standard brought up by BeanieFan. FrankAnchor 12:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but move to "Fred Vehmeier". When nominated, the article was a micro-stub and what little content there was turns out to have been about the wrong person. Pretty much a mess. BeanieFan has made a solid effort at saving the article, fixing the mistaken identity, and adding sourcing some of which is borderline SIGCOV. While the nomination was certainly warranted, circumstances have changed sufficiently to keep per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."). Cbl62 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying SPORTSBASIC doesn't need to be met? And how do the (very local) hiring announcements pass ROUTINE/NOTNEWS? The guy coached five games for a team that wasn't even part of the NCAA, got some brief mentions in hyper-local press, and then disappeared...why do we need to document every single game and every primary observation (e.g. the first-person description of him from Grand Forks) when all the actually relevant info is already contained elsewhere? JoelleJay (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
why do we need to document every single game and every primary observation ... when all the actually relevant info is already contained elsewhere? None of the information is contained anywhere else on Wikipedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's listed in the relevant navboxes and his coaching record is at List of North Dakota Fighting Hawks football seasons. We don't need more details than that for a person whose only claim to fame is coaching 5 games at an independent school that took another 10 years to get into the NCAA, was in the College Division and D-II until 2008, and only now is in D-I (and FCS at that). JoelleJay (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article we have here is probably at least 500 times more helpful than an entry in that list; from this, you can learn all sorts of things; from that, you learn that he existed and coached for a year. I say, we should have these kinds of details and articles. The encyclopedia is made better this way. You were the one complaining at the mass removal of Olympians proposal that stubs are worthless and nobody cares about them, yet now you're saying that high quality articles are worthless too? What is something that an encyclopedia should have, in your opinion? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Predictably, all of the above keep !votes come from CFB project members following BF's notification there, with only the last providing an argument that doesn't make the faulty assertion that GNG is met with two brief routine hiring announcements published in hyper-local newspapers 5 days apart... JoelleJay (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the faulty assertion that GNG is met – That is your opinion. Currently everyone else (besides Therapyisgood) has disagreed with you. If anyone is making "faulty arguments," I'd say that's you, repeatedly stressing "oh the coverage is local[1] so can't count and is ROUTINE[2]" — (1) discounting coverage for being local on people is completely non-policy based and (2) ROUTINE does not apply to people; it is for events. As for the members being football editors, I see absolutely no issue with that, considering that they would be the ones most knowledgeable on this subject. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are many of the same Some of these keeps are the same CFB editors you rounded up to make those specious IAR arguments that got you and the project warned at ANI and whose GNG arguments were chastised by AfD closing admins ("Calling this "significant coverage" strains credulity to its breaking point"). 1) Local coverage is absolutely relevant, NSPORT even calls it into question with the warning it must be independent--the Grand Forks announcement in particular is suspect here given the clearly first-person account of the subject's appearance and the fact the hiring had been finalized at noon that day. How do we know this isn't a press release from the hiring committee, especially considering the hyperbolic praise it gives him? We also have multiple recent closes emphasizing the deficiencies of local news, e.g. the argument that an exclusive reliance on local news coverage implies a lack of notability, is persuasive[8], Despite the existence of substantial local coverage on the subject, there was a rough consensus that a standalone article is not warranted[9]. 2) As has been explained to you so. many. times by multiple people, "routine coverage" is defined by NOTNEWS, which applies to all articles (Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage). This has been affirmed by the numerous deletions/discussions based on arguments that sourcing is routine.[[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]
There you go again with the WALLSOFTEXT... My opinion is that this coach is notable, and you will not get me to change it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And also These are many of the same CFB editors you rounded up to make those specious IAR arguments that got you and the project warned at ANI and whose GNG arguments were chastised by AfD closing admins ("Calling this "significant coverage" strains credulity to its breaking point") – (1) there was no consensus at that discussion for any kind of warning whatsoever, and (2) that was one close, and in it, the admin didn't even pay attention to the longer sources which were the main arguments for notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was also unaware of any notification on WikiProject CFB because I am not a member of that project. I am not one of the same CFB editors [Beaniefan] rounded up either. I learned of this AFD because I monitor the American football sort category. I also respectfully request JoelleJay strike this baseless accusation. FrankAnchor 19:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. While none of us were there to personally verify it, the paper saying he was one of the best coaches in the US and a star player also helps strengthen his case. ND were also state champions the year he coached and with them being an independent, that may have been the largest title they could have won, strengthening the notability and reasons to keep the article. Wikiproject CFB also specifically cites that even being a coach for one season does not disqualify anyone from being notable.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; looking through the sources available, they are trivial coverage (Vehmeier was hired as coach, coach lined up his team for practice, team was beaten, etc.). The Freeport Journal source provides glowing coverage (he is well known in this "city"), but we have to keep in mind that Freeport was/is a small town, and the tone of the article suggests a bit of puffery (if Vehmeier was really one of the best football coaches at that time, why did he take a position at a small university like UND?). Most of the other sources are the kinds of things anyone can find in a genealogy search; it certainly doesn't establish WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a bit ridiculous to say that the sources do not cover the topic "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (SIGCOV/GNG). From the shorter one (Freeport-Journal Standard), you learn that he is from Dakota, Illinois (1), attended Beloit College (2) then Illinois (3); was appointed head coach at UND (4) and had previously been at Illinois for one year (5), on the freshman team (6); prior to that he had spent two years at Beloit (7) and was a star athlete (8); he was a star freshman at Illinois as well (9), he was a well-known local figure (10), and had been working (it seems) the past few months for a large Harvesting company (11); and additionally his contract was a "lucrative" one (12). That's at least twelve different details ("directly and in detail") about Vehmeier and its from the shorter one! That's the definition of SIGCOV! BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And in addition to GNG (which this is definitely a pass of), this is also a very clear pass of WP:NBASIC, which states, "If the depth of any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources can be combined to demonstrate notability." BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That same argument could be made for "Thomas L. Lawson", a county surveyor whose departure from Grand Forks for San Diego was announced in the same edition as the "larger" Herald piece with a ~20-sentence column summarizing his whole career. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out other topics is not a valid argument in AFD discussions. We are here to talk about if Mr. Vehmeier’s notability, and nobody else’s. JoelleJay is a very experienced editor (particularly in AFD discussions) and should know this. FrankAnchor 22:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When the argument is that SIGCOV is met when multiple severable pieces of biographical info can be extracted from a source, it's plenty relevant to mention that the same degree of detail is available from such a source for a random non-notable citizen. This speaks toward how routine that coverage is, which is the major factor in NOTNEWS. JoelleJay (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When the argument is that SIGCOV is met when multiple severable pieces of biographical info can be extracted from a source, it's plenty relevant to mention that the same degree of detail is available from such a source for a random non-notable citizen. Not really – trying to discount sources because someone else was covered who's likely non-notable has no basis in policy. Still an invalid argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to argue non-notability because of too much news coverage is just a song-and-dance routine. I don't dance. Maybe the closer will...--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the discussion above. WP:NOT overrides guidelines, and the capacity to extract details from a source does not mean those details are of encyclopedic value. Just about everyone holding an important position in a small U.S. town will receive coverage in multiple local newspapers, that doesn't mean an article on them through NBASIC is warranted. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is arguing that everybody who gets coverage in a small-town newspaper passes GNG. I think we both agree that, in close cases like this, we have to weigh the coverage with the impact/overall importance of the person. Which is why I often vote delete for one- and two-game NFL players from the 1920s and such (even in cases where there is a little bit of coverage in a local paper). In this case, reasonable minds can and do differ on that impact/importance. What tips me to a "weak keep" vote is (i) the impressive expansion in the few days that the AfD has been pending, and (ii) Vehmeier's status as a historical head coach at a major college football program. The North Dakota Fighting Hawks football program is one of the oldest and most prominent in the plains states, with a history dating back to 1894. Programs of this caliber warrant a full historical treatment, including IMO articles on each of its historic head coaches (assuming there is enough coverage to prepare a reasonably rounded article). This is not like so many of the early NFL and cricket players where we have deleted because there was literally nothing remotely approaching SIGCOV and no way to write a reasonably rounded article. I respect your conclusion, but the totality of the circumstances lead me to the other side of the divide. Cbl62 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the above. Reviewing many, but not all, of the sources, I have not been able to find WP:SIGCOV; one source comes close but doesn't, in opinion, meet that standard. If I am wrong then I would ask keep !voters to provide the best WP:THREE sources, which will make it easier for editors to assess the level if SIGCOV and make it easier for the closer to determine the strength of the arguments for and against the existence of SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is this: we've got two good sources, the ones about him coaching from the Grand Forks Herald and Freeport Journal-Standard, and then many other ones that are not as in-depth but still are useful and can be combined to demonstrate notability under NBASIC. And while his notability is close, considering that he is the historical head coach of a major Division I college football program we should be able to keep; deleting would not help the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Beanie on this one. We have been able to build a reasonably rounded article, and this is the type of circumstance for which WP:BASIC ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.") fits like a glove. I'm all in favor of deleting/redirecting substubs based only on databases, but this is not that circumstance. Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can a biography be well-rounded if it's sourced almost entirely to primary, non-independent, and/or trivial news (and that doesn't even include all the local and routine sources)? And does this mean you believe SPORTSBASIC #5 is not required? JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree about your assertion that the souring is all primary, non-independent, and trivial. This article has been substantially expanded with 15,126 characters and 28 sources, covering Vehmeier's life from his birth in Illinois, to his college career in Wisconsin, to his coaching career in North Dakota, and forward through marriage, later real estate career, and death. That's pretty well rounded IMO -- I'd guess top five percent of all sports biographies on Wikipedia -- not the sort of sub-stub that we ought to be seeking to expunge. As for SPORTSBASIC #5, I think you know I am a fan of it (I proposed it after all), but this provision was intended to aid us in expunging the plethora of sub-stubs sourced to databases and lacking any significant coverage that would allow us to write a well-rounded biography. Here, we have a clear pass of the overarching Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, and SPORTBASIC #5 was never intended, nor should it be misused, to trump or overrule the more general, overarching rule. Cbl62 (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at just the first section of the body, the majority of the content there is cited to primary, non-independent, and trivial sources.
Sentence 1: state vital records (primary), draft registration cards (primary);
2: a mention in the Freeport Daily Journal (predecessor to the Journal-Standard) local interest section stating, in whole, "Fred Vehmeier, Jr., who is attending school in Dixon, spent Saturday and Sunday at home" (trivial; local news (pop. ~17500)); and the Freeport Daily Standard/Journal-Standard announcement that he was hired at UND (local news; and IMO routine);
3: an injury report from the Appleton Post-Crescent (local (pop. ~17000), routine);
4: a report from the Beloit school newspaper (not independent, local) stating Vehmeier had been selected for all-state by the sports editors of the Ripon and Beloit school newspapers (not independent, local);
5: the FJS hiring announcement and a two-sentence announcement in the local interest section of Devils Lake World that he was hired at UND (trivial, local (pop. ~5200), routine);
6: a peacock quote describing him from the Beloit school newspaper (not independent, local);
7: his name in a freshman squad list from the Daily Illini school newspaper (not independent, trivial, local); and the GFH announcement he was hired at UND (local (pop. ~12,500), IMO routine);
8: a two-sentence police blotter in the Chicago Tribune (primary, trivial);
9: the FJS source, which is used to claim he was "well-known in local towns and cities" but only says "Mr. Vehmeier is well known in this city."
10: a two-sentence announcement in the Freeport Daily Bulletin that he stopped by Freeport and will be working for the International Harvester company (not independent, trivial, local, routine).
NBASIC is not met with trivial mentions or non-secondary independent RS. Just because prose can be constructed out of such details doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Joelle. That a misleading and cherry-picked analysis that conveniently ignores the other 18 sources. Cbl62 (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are all the sources in the first section; do I need to assess the sourcing for all the other sentences too? And do you disagree with my characterizations of primary, non-independent, and trivial here? JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes"It's up to you" and "yes". As one example, you dismiss this source on your wholly subjective claim that it's "trivial". To the contrary, it arguably qualifies as WP:SIGCOV as it addresses Vehmeier in some detail (two paragraphs, six sentences), reporting that he (i) was appointed head coach at North Dakota, (ii) will take charge of the team at once, (iii) attended Beloit College where he was a star athlete, (iv) attended the University of Illinois where he starred on the freshman football team, and (v) had been working for a large harvester company. Cbl62 (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the FJS hiring announcement was trivial. I said it is routine in my opinion. And anyway, I analyzed the rest of the article and in the second section 17/23 sentences are cited to one clearly non-neutral source, the GFH (or that plus UND archives), and of the remaining 6 sentences 3 of them are to primary stats and 1 is to a trivial quote from Wausau. That leaves us with two sentences from anywhere else: sentence 1, which is sourced to the FDJ/FJS and GFH, and sentence 8, which is sourced to a game announcement in the Fargo Forum (also local) and the GFH. ~375/570 words in this section are direct quotes from GFH. The result is a predictably highly-positive account of Vehmeier sourced pretty much entirely to what is probably one reporter's opinion at the newspaper serving his school's 12,500-person town all over a timespan of under two months of his life. JoelleJay (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Tudor Owen, the author of at least three GFH articles (sources 16, 18, 19) was a student at UND[18] at the time. Source #20 is by "Hank", likely another student. JoelleJay (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've still got 24 other sources... (and those weren't the most in-depth ones, either, so it doesn't really affect his GNG/NBASIC pass) BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing the identity of the authors of the other GFH/Freeport articles, how can we be sure that they are independent?(*) And no, we do not have "24 other sources", we have 15 different sources total and of those 5 are indisputably primary or non-independent and 2 more are very likely non-independent submitted obituaries/wedding announcements. Those 7 sources, plus the 4 GFH refs and 2 FJS obits, are the sole support for over 40% of the text on the page. Of the remaining 8 sources (FDJ/FJS 1, 2, 3; Post-Crescent; Devils Lake World; GFH 1, 2, 7; Chicago Tribune; Freeport Daily Bulletin 1, 2; Fargo Forum; Wausau Daily Herald), FJS 1, DLW, FDB 1, CT, and Wausau are trivial and/or non-independent -- these bring the non-GNG-supported text up to 50%. And all of that is without passing any judgment on whether the rest of the sources are routine or non-independent.
(*) Harry H. Cooper, City Editor of GFH in at least 1911, was formerly the president of the UND Athletic Association[19] and managing editor of the UND student newspaper[20], and joined the GFH editorial staff while still a student in 1907[21]; in at least 1911 he was also a charter member of the Delta Sigma Rho UND chapter[22] and in 1913 was attending law school at UND [23]. The telegraph editor in 1912 was also concurrently a UND law student[24], and another reporter for GFH was a university student in 1912[25] where he worked directly for Coach Armstrong[26][27]. So actually there is a very good chance whoever wrote those pieces for GFH was connected with the university and not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there was an editor at the GFH who had once attended the university does not mean the articles are non-independent – and especially not because you have no evidence that the articles (with the exception of the article by Owen; however, those weren't the sigcov ones so doesn't matter) were written by those people!; and you also have no evidence whatsoever that there were connected people working for the Freeport newspaper. (Also, I'm seeing Cooper having edited in 1907 and not 1911, and certainly not 1912, the date when the articles were published - Hammond was the telegraph editor, so I find it unlikely he wrote about sports - and I'm not seeing evidence that Locklin was an editor). BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that multiple people were GFH editors/reporters while they were students indicates a much greater probability that the editor/reporter of any individual piece is affiliated with the university -- something that is very much alluded when NBASIC emphasizes the requirement for local news to be independent. Cooper was the city editor in 1911[28], Locklin was a reporter in 1914 (and with a prior personal connection to the team wouldn't be independent even if he wasn't a student at the same time). And those are by far not the only GFH staff who simultaneously attended UND (e.g. the editor of the university section in 1911[29][30]), let alone ever attended. FWIW, the sports editor at the start of 1911 left in June 1911[31] and it's unclear who filled in for him. JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously going through the Grand Forks job directories of the 1900s/10s, then digging through old newspapers in hopes of finding that the GFH editors had once attended the university? Anyway, you have no evidence that the articles we're discussing here were written by non-independent people (it would likely be the sports editor who replaced Benson - also, for Torgerson, how is a mention of him serving with the Ad Altoria Literary Society evidence him being non-independent and working for the Herald?). BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not difficult to search for "editor" or "reporter" in a directory and match those hits to newspaper archives. And NBASIC reiterates that local coverage must be independent, which sure sounds like independence is not assumed for local newspapers and should be demonstrated if those sources are to contribute to notability.
The linked sources show Torgerson was a student at UND while being the editor of UND news at the newspaper. That's clearly not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the sources is not what determines if the article is of quality; rather, its the content of the article (also, I disagree that its sourced almost entirely to primary, non-independent, and/or trivial news). As for SPORTSBASIC, the Grand Forks Herald piece passes it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An article cannot be high quality without high quality sources. BilledMammal (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've got ones that meet that standard... BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; we lack sources containing the significant coverage required. BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and will leave it at that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment It's unclear why John Vehmeier was converted to a redirect to Fred Vehmeier, who is an entirely different person, mid-AfD. I've restored the John article so that we can discuss it. –dlthewave☎ 23:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)*Delete John Vehmeier, the person whom this AfD is about and who has no significant coverage. Fred Vehmeier is a different person who should be nominated separately. –dlthewave☎ 23:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
dlthewave, I think you've misunderstood what's going on here. The subject in question here has always been the man who was the head football coach of the University of North Dakota in 1912. That man was Fred Vehmeier. However, the article was originally titled "John Vehmeier" due to an error about his name originating in the North Dakota football media guide. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I went ahead and changed it back. –dlthewave☎ 00:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on the basis of BeanieFan11's work and Cbl62's argument regarding WP:BASIC ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.") I'll add that I can't be the only one who has completely lost patience with the attitude of withering contempt routinely displayed by certain entrenched Delete !voters. Ingratis (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GuerilleroParlez Moi 13:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment there is no reason to relist this discussion, a good number of editors have commented. At this point, if the consensus isn't clear then it would clearly be "no consensus" -- this discussion can be closed based on the current volume of participation.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what about a rename to 1912 North Dakota Fighting Sioux football team? Apart from the (different) obituary, the article is just a re-hashing of glowing press coverage of the football season focused on their coach. The topic is the football, not the person (who, as a 24 year old who never coached again, we can safely assume was never notable as "one of the best coaches in the United States"). Walt Yoder (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Small clarification: The UND football team was not then known as the "Fighting Sioux". If Walt's suggestion were adopted, the correct season article would be 1912 North Dakota Flickertails football team. Cbl62 (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like the suggestion to include a massive coach biography in a team article – we've never done that. What makes the most sense would be to have a standalone article on the coach, as there's too much content to merge somewhere. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I think a rename or merge would be more confusing and not less.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need a massive coach biography in the season article after the merge? This biography has four paragraphs dedicated to the five games he coached during his career. Surely, a merge would involve trimming most of that content (since the discussion of the season would surely discuss those five games)? Jogurney (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.