Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivian Hultman


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The consensus here is that coverage of this article subject does establish WP:NBASIC although there is a vocal opposition to this interpretation. If editors wish to pursue a Redirect option, that can continue on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Vivian Hultman

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Currently there are only primary sources referenced, and a before check only comes up with brief mentions such as [] and [], which aren't nearly enough. Let&#39;srun (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Michigan,  and Pennsylvania. Let&#39;srun (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: A quick search on newspapers.com turned up a decent number of articles about him. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. A more thorough search would likely turn up much more, especially given that many of the sources which mention Hultman—a star before the dawn of the internet—are likely offline. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I found those articles as well, but of those sources what would be the WP:THREE to you? Personally I don't think any of them constitute WP:SIGCOV. Let&#39;srun (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I was unable to find any SIGCOV on the subject during a search on NewspaperArchive, Newspapers.com and ProQuest. It is of course possible that some Michican newspapers are not available there. Of the above sources, this is probably the best but not enough to base a whole article on. I would suggest a redirect to Michigan State Spartans football as most of the sources are about his stint there. Alvaldi (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Will make sure to expand to show notability... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have just performed an extensive expansion of the article which shows that Hultman passes 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: the article is now over 700 words and provides an extensive summary of his life. There are additionally some sources with some depth, e.g. this and this. But we also must take into consideration the player's age and his accomplishments: he played three full seasons in the National Football League, the highest major league in the sport all-time, and was also considered a top player for the Michigan State Spartans, which is considered one of the top-level collegiate teams. Many newspapers of the time are not available online and thus it is more difficult to find coverage for athletes of this era, but regardless, we clearly have a pass of WP:NBASIC here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per BeanieFan11. Also, NGRIDIRON used to presume notability for 1 game in the NFL and this guy had 30 (and most as a starter). ~WikiOriginal-9~  ( talk ) 18:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per BeanieFan11's improve of the article and addition of numerous sources showing general notability. Although there has been much debate about the presumption of notability for players who only played in 1 or 2 games, playing in 30 games over three seasons should have a strong presumption of notability that is only overthrown by a complete lack of sources/references. Kudos to BeanieFan11 for their work on this article. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 19:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - per BeanieFan11. Most of the references are short but in the context of a century old subject (where many sources are likely unavailable anymore) I am fine with that, and the Detroit Free Press article at least is of reasonable length.  I would also point out that WP:THREE is just an essay, and not of ideal applicability to pre-internet subjects, especially not subjects of this vintage. Rlendog (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep – state of the article now (January 2) vs. prior (January 1 and earlier) shows significant expansion via additional sources. Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to withdraw this nomination? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not here, no. The full reading of the WP:NBASIC notes that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability My concerns remain unaddressed as the coverage is all trivial, but I support a ATD. Let&#39;srun (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * National-level coverage for being named captain of a prestigious football team is not trivial... BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherented. National level coverage is all of two sentences. Let&#39;srun (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "notability is not inherited" has any relevance here; Hultman is notable for his coverage and accomplishments per WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG. Now, even if the national coverage is short, it still shows that his accomplishments were not considered "of little value or importance" (trivial definition). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How is a brief announcement in a Detroit newspaper about a Michigan university topic "national-level coverage"?? JoelleJay (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See Spokesman-Review (Washington), The Morning News (Delaware), The Cincinnati Post (Ohio), The Courier-Journal (Kentucky), Los Angeles Times (California), The Salt Lake Tribune (Utah), The Baltimore Sun (Maryland), Washington Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), Journal and Courier (Indiana), The Pittsburgh Post (Pennsylvania), Chicago Tribune (Illinois) – those are some of the largest newspapers in 11 different states across the U.S. writing about Hultman's being named captain. And it's not surprising: Michigan State is one of the most prestigious college football teams and has several hundred NFL alumni (with Hultman being one of the first five), something only a few other schools can claim. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per BeanieFan11 and WP:HEYMAN. Significant improvements have been made and I do believe this person passes WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hey man im josh, which sources do you consider SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per all before. Svartner (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect. I am still not seeing the SIGCOV required by SPORTSCRIT. A brief announcement in a Detroit newspaper about him being elected captain of the Michigan Aggies is routine news, and a local obituary submission is clearly not INDY or SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Free Press article, from the largest newspaper in one of the U.S.'s largest cities (Detroit), contains approximately 160 words and is directly about Hultman. A sometimes quoted standard, although not set in stone, is WP:100WORDS. It clearly is significant coverage, especially considering the subject here (captain at a major school, extensive top-level NFL career, 100 years old, pre-internet, not great access to sources). We need to use common sense here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:100WORDS is an essay, not a guideline. WP:SOURCESEXIST is also not a suitable keep argument. Let&#39;srun (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Common sense is allowed to be used, however. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Another essay. Let&#39;srun (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is, but it explains a policy. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you are now saying that this article doesn't meet the GNG and BASIC and instead IAR is the reason this should be kept? Just trying to understand under what policy you think this should be kept. Let&#39;srun (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It does meet GNG and BASIC. I am saying that we need to use common sense to come to that conclusion and that IAR would also be a valid reason to keep if it did not pass GNG/BASIC. Of course, it does, so... BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2024 (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.