Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur S. Herman


 * 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   keep. Sort of between keep and no consensus here, but it seems like consensus is leaning toward Herman meeting GNG. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Arthur S. Herman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NSPORTS. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources could be found (only coverage is as a line in a statistical database). No results from Google Books or Google News archive, only 9 from regular Google. Note: I am aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are many similar articles that should IMO also be deleted (and there are many hed coaches who are notable and do deserve an article). I am not making this a mass nomination because often for some of the people included, some other, unexpected source of notability is found. Each coach should be considered separately, no matter how tedious this may be. Fram (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  —Paul McDonald (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep head college football coaches are almost always considered notable, and it seems that every time one is deleted in AFD, later it is "resurrected" when additional online and/or offline sources are found. This particular article is less than a few hours old.  Further, WP:NSPORTS is inclusionary and not exclusionary.  A better guideline would be WP:GNG which many would argue the article has already met through verification of two separate reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * — Yep: that is correct.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Verification isn't all that is needed to meet GNG, never mind that only one of the sources seem to work (cfreference didn't work at the time of nomination, and it doesn't work now: did it work at the time of creation of the article?). Apart from that, I have checked a number of old AfD's for head coaches, and it has become obvious that after three years, a few are truly resurrected, a few are recreated with one local newspaper added, and a few are redirects, so certainly not "every time". Anyway, instead of making assertions, perhaps you can provide us with sources establishing notability, i.e. sources which "address the subject directly in detail" (from the GNG), not one source which has one single statistical line and zero biographical info. As for the article being only a few hours old: should I have nominated something like Dwight Watson (American football) instead, which is three months old and fairly identical to the article under discussion? These articles don't magically get expanded soon after creation, if no sources are available. Fram (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: If we had ten divisions of men like Cbl62, all these coaching stubs would indeed be expanded. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You made me blush. Thanks for the kind words. Cbl62 (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you got the reference. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep we followed through on providing the sources, and you followed through on your threat Articles for deletion/Dwight Watson (American football). It's not a battleground here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That was not a threat, the AfD of that article was a reaction on the sourcing done at that article, which made it painfully obvious that he isn't notable at all. It's not my fault that you first create articles on non-notable persons, and then spend more time on the same article without finding any further indication of notability... Fram (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wohoo - Then lets add every single head college football coach in here as per Paulmcdonald. Of course your statement lacks any kind of solid argument, and is biased. Wikipedia is not a directory, and if he has a notable act outside of the college (training city's homeless/poor kids or teenagers, developing some act of endorse or activitionism or charitable act), otherwise he is NON notable, and the article should be Deleted, or else he fails WP:GNG, he also fails WP:1EVENT] and the specific notability guideline (in this case WP:ATHLETE), even though the article can be well sourced, it is not a factor to maintain and keep an article in wikipedia. Eduemoni↑talk↓  20:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why would working with poor kids in Lancester or doing charity in the area be more notably necessarily than playing/coaching football at Franklin & Marshall? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "1 event" issue raised above is not applicable: Even when the article started, there were 8 games that made up the single season, not a single event.  Now we have more seasons as a player and more events in the life of the individual.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. One lackluster season at a small school nearly a century ago indicates very little in the way of notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Herman's record and the amount of time since he last coached are irrelevant to his notability. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – Won't offer an opinion on keeping or deleting the article, but I happened to click on it at AFD and noticed a block of four sentences identical to one source, which I've removed. I implore whomever added that to be more careful in the future in this regard.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That was me and it was inadvertent. Thanks for catching it. Cbl62 (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I can understand why someone might have nominated this in its previous stub form. The stub has now been substantially expanded, and several newspaper stories focusing on Herman have been added to the article. I invite those voting "Delete" to give it a fresh look with an open mind. Nowadays, nobody outside of Lancaster cares about F&M football, but back in the 1910s, Franklin & Marshall played at the highest level, and their games were covered extensively in the national media including the New York Times, Boston Globe, and other national papers. Herman was a major star for F&M in both baseball and football and was one of the inaugural inductees in the F&M Athletic Hall of Fame when it was created in 1969. He also played two years of professional baseball in the Blue Ridge League and received considerable press for his baseball prowess. His football coaching career ended prematurely when he was drafted into the Army during WWI. When he was taken away from F&M by the draft, the story was covered in newspapers across the country. Cbl62 (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if F&M was notable, it does not necessarily mean Sherman as an individual is notable for playing on their team, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. —Bagumba (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Paul McDonald and Cbl62's arguments and general WikiProject College football guidelines on head football coaches. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Those guidelines are not generally accepted, contrary to the WP:NSPORTS guideline. I still don't see him meeting that guideline. The article is nicely expanded, with an impressive amount of sources, only a few of those though are about him, the others mention him in a lineup or some such. The Adams County News article is more about him, but is a ourely local source. The same goes for the Gettysburg sources. He palyed as a professional, but only in the minor league. He is inducted in a hall of fame, but that's the one from his former school, not one that meets WP:NSPORTS either. Please indicate which aspect of his career meets any of the criteria of WP:NSPORTS. Fram (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fram -- It is well-established that the WP:NSPORTS guideline is inclusionary, not exclusionary. A college athlete who satisfies WP:GNG based on having been the subject of non-trivial news coverage qualifies.  This is particularly so for college football players before the 1920s, because there was no NFL at that time.  College football played by the major teams like F&M was the highest level of the sport in this era.  Here, and despite the difficulty in accessing many of the sources from this era, we have already found stories that are focused on Herman in the Adams County News (fn. 10), The Star and Sentinel (fn. 12), The Indianapolis Star (fn. 18), and The Evening Independent (fn. 19).  This is pretty solid evidence under WP:GNG, and given the fact that the article was only created today, no reason to AfD this one. Cbl62 (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "It is well-established that the WP:NSPORTS guideline is inclusionary, not exclusionary." Not really well established, people disagree all the time over this. It is clear that he has no claim to notability outside his sporting career (player or coach). If he then fails to meet WP:NSPORTS, it becomes a problem to keep the article anyway, in my view. As for college football being the highest level of the sport at the time: as far as I can tell, they only played against other teams from the same state. If that is correct, it becomes hard to accept this as the "highest level of the sport", as this would mean that there were proabably a few hundred teams competing at that same level at that time in the States. Comparing this with "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." (which is what NSPORTS requests) is not really correct. Fram (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We disagree over whether it's established or not. But even if meeting WP:NSPORTS was required, Herman passes.  WP:NSPORTS states, "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage."  Here, and as outlined above, Herman has been the subject of non-trivial media coverage.  Also, it's not correct that F&M was a small local program.  During the 1910s, F&M was playing the top Eastern teams including Rutgers, Cornell, Penn, Temple, Syracuse, Galludet, Johns Hopkins, the Carlisle Indian School, and Lafayette.  F&M was truly one of the big-time programs at the time.  Cbl62 (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's see: in 1913-16, F&M played each season against a number of PA teams (7or 8 usually), and each year 1 (one) non-PA team. In 1917, when he was coach, they only played PA teams. Still seems rather state-based to me. Fram (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been focusing on early college football history for quite some time, and I can assure you that many of F&M's opponents were major programs at the time. Penn won 7 national championship in this era.  Cornell was the national champion in 1915.  Carlisle Indian School featured Jim Thorpe and was coached by Pop Warner.  But even if you don't agree with that, the fact remains that Herman has received non-trivial media coverage in newspapers at least in Pennsylania, Ohio, and Indiana.  Cbl62 (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Penn won 7 national championship in this era." Don't you mean two instead of seven, 1911 and 1912? Pittsburgh won four titles in this decade, and considering that F&M didn't even compete against Pittsburgh in this decade (despite being from the same state even), one can wonder if F&M really played at the highest level, whatever this "highest level" meant at that time (not what NSPORTS uses as its definition of highest level, in my opinion). Fram (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, this is all kind of beside the point, but I did mean seven. Penn has been credited with 7 NCs from 1894 to 1924.  See Penn NCs.  I never said Penn had 7 NCs in a decade; I used term "era" referring to the early years of college football. As for the lack of direct matches with Pitt, I don't know why the two schools didn't play each other, but what's interesting is that, when you compare the schedule for Pitt (which you agree is the highest level of football in the 1910s) with the F&M schedule in the 1910s, you find that the two schools regularly played against many of the same opponents (Dickinson, Carlise, Penn, Lehigh).  Even though they didn't play face-to-face, they were playing at the same level of competition.  Cbl62 (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strange, according to the College Football Data Warehouse, which is the source you (plural) for all these articles, Penn has only won 2 championships in this era (both in this decade):. Of course, it seems that no one really agrees if there was a "highest level" and what it was, since there are sometimes 5 "national champions" in one year. Your claim "(which you agree is the highest level of football in the 1910s)" is incorrect and I don't see how you can read that from "one can wonder if F&M really played at the highest level, whatever this "highest level" meant at that time (not what NSPORTS uses as its definition of highest level, in my opinion)." If you organise enough competitions, with enough champions, then everyone and everything plays at the "highest level" (a bit like what is happening with boxing or MMA), making the term for such sports meaningless and clearly not what is intended by that term in our guideline. Fram (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember also that this is by far the highest level of the sport. There was some professional football at the time, but the NFL didn't form until 1920 and it wasn't even a "major league" until the 1960s or 1970s depending on who you ask.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another thing I cannot find anything in WP:GNG or WP:N that states that if a college football team only plays teams in its state that it isn't notable. That matter is completely irrelevant, especially with the coverage of the team found.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That a team only and mostly plays in its own state is not "irrelevant" when people are proclaiming that the team is playing at "the highest level of the sport". The "highest level" comes from the nutshell of WP:NSPORTS: "An athlete is presumed notable if the person has actively participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics, and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The highest level is clearly defined as "a major international competition", while this is a not even the national competition but a regional (mostly statebased) one, where at least one of the best teams of the state at the time (Pittsburgh being four times national champion in the decade) didn't even compete against F&M. You can continue claiming that he played and coached at the highest level of the sport, but if you take the definition of this as given in NSPORTS, which is the relevant guideline on Wikipedia, you are clearly wrong. Fram (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is nothing in the WP:NSPORTS criteria that covers coaches in American football and playing for the Blue Ridge League is not inherently notable per WP:MLB/N, so that argument is straight out the door. As for the WP:GNG, there is routine, local coverage of his firing, game stats in the Boston Globe and NY Times.  There are (supposedly, as the archives are not online) two references to Herman being drafted for WWI service, but for the time period should be pretty run-of-the-mill too. Every local athlete in their mid-20's probably got a "our boy's been called up" blurb  in the local papers. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment, obviously, but just a small correction: WP:NSPORTS does cover college coaches in American football: "College athletes and coaches are notable if [...]" Fram (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nod, I saw that but what I mean is that they don't attain automatic article-worthiness simply by being a head coach. As opposed to the "Have appeared in at least one game..." criteria found elsewhere in the notability article for players. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per the general notability guideline. Having met WP:GNG, not meeting WP:NSPORTS is not an issue.  For one thing, WP:NSPORTS itself repeats the general notability guidelines: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[1] non-trivial[2] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject.[4]."  Rlendog (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks to me like he meets GNG, seems to be more than trivial coverage about him. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to Franklin & Marshall College The subject fails WP:GNG by lacking significant coverage in secondary sources. Significant "means that sources address the subject directly in detail", not that there are a large number of trivial sources. The two New York Times references and the Reading Eagle references are WP:ROUTINE game coverage that listed Herman in the starting lineup or mentions that he scored in a single sentence as part of routine game coverage. This does not establish notability. The following sentences serve to establish his school's notability, but not Herman's:
 * Playing minor league baseball as he did is not notable (WP:WPBB/N). Being a college coach does not guarantee notability. Per WP:NSPORTS, "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept."  It is only an indication that the subject is likely to be notable. "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson ... will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the criteria." There is no source presented that establishes his notability as a coach. There is only a source that lists the records for every school year, including the lone season Herman coached. The text and sources on his later years relies heavily on Census information and draft information from Ancestry.com. Those documents are considered WP:PRIMARY sources, and cannot be used to establish notability as they are not WP:SECONDARY sources (see also Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_92). Also, being drafted is not exactly notable as it is more run-of-the-mill (WP:ROTM), especially in those times. Finally, WP:ARTICLEAGE does not advise leniency simply because an article was recently created.  It's notability should be established while being developed on a user page, for example, before subjecting it to scrutiny in the article space. —Bagumba (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, plenty of coverage, meets WP:GNG and Cbl62 has clearly articulated why this person was notable, so we can defer the argument about WP:NSPORTS and college coaches. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arxiloxos. And can I say, it's absurd that you're trying to use Google Hits to measure notability for someone active before World War II?  Not all historical media coverage was magically ported to the internet. matt91486 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not absurd at all. I create many, many articles on people active before WWI or WWII, and there are plenty of sources available for the notable ones. Many American newspapers of this period are available online, just like many books. In some ways, it is easier to find info on people active in 1920 than it is for people active in 1950, since more of the info has become public domain. Fram (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Hits: Amos Alonzo Stagg, about 103,000. Bobby Bowden, about 452,000.  Current living notable people will always have more than those in the past.  In this example, Bowden has 4 1/2 times more.  Google hits can be a measure to look at, but to base notability on that is foolish.  WP:GOOGLE provides more detail.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Current living notable people have more than those in the past, true, but "9" is extremely low for a supposedly notable American of any period. Anyway, I would never argue that someone is not notable beacuse of a lack of Google hits, if sufficient good sources were available anyway. I am however not swayed by the sources that were found, and don't see him meeting any of the accepted relevant notability guidelines. Fram (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 9? Try a lot more than that. You claim that there are only 9 sources found online with google, yet there are 13 online sources in the article and a total of 25 sources cited.  On Google, the search "Arthur Herman" +football +"Franklin & Marshall" yeilds 76 alone, and that's a pretty specific search.  I really don't know what to say beyond that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry, you may change "9" to "13", which changes, umm, nothing (note that not even all of these 13 are about this Arthur S. Herman, e.g. one is about "Arthur Herman, Author of Ghandi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry", and another about "Arthur Herman Wilson, professor of English at Susquehanna Uuiversity"). Fram (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Discussing raw numbers of sources found or actually used is detracting from the more important point of "What do the articles say about the subject?". Consensus will need to decide if a college player and college coach who also played minor league baseball but never competed at the highest level was interesting enough based on non-WP:PRIMARY sources to not be WP:Run-of-the-mill and established notability that was WP:NOTINHERITED. —Bagumba (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that a Google hits count is not the best measure of notability even for contemporary persons, let alone for persons living in the early 1900s. What is important under WP:GNG is whether the person has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media.  Even with incomplete access to newspapers of the era, we have multiple newspaper articles reporting on Herman as the principal subject of the coverage. These are not passing references to Herman in game coverage, but in depth coverage of Herman individually. Cbl62 (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2011 (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.