Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Gatena (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. — Aitias // discussion 01:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Gatena

AfDs for this article:
Steve Gatena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable

scout team
award. He has never started a game, had any significant play-time this season, or had a notable-enough college career at any of his previous stops. The article is long and well-written, but does not at any point describe anything that crosses the threshold of notability for Wikipedia.

Putting this article into the greater context: If Wikipedia were to permit all Division I-FBS (top level) scholarship athletes, we'd have approximately [120 (teams) x 85 (NCAA-allowed scholarship players)] 10,200 new articles (at least). If you include walk-ons, that 10,200 number increases with very little room for any opinion on notability. A line must be drawn, and I think this line can be agreed upon. This article is basically a well-crafted vanity page; this article appears to be the work of either the subject, friend/relative, or PR firm. If it were allowed, any player who successfully walks onto any team would have a free ticket into Wikipedia. I could see an overrun of hopeful punters and kickers with the ability to create a "pretty" but ultimately non-notable page.

Because it came up earlier, I should note that the subject's level of education also isn't significant: the same USC roster includes a former high school Gatorade National Player of the Year and strong NFL prospect Jeff Byers, who is an MBA student. His article lists high school awards, but they are not significant like a national Player of the Year, or even a prestigious regional award.

Again: he has never started for USC or seen any significant playing time, which is a major blow to any notability questions. Because I support the inclusion of notable college football athletes in

WP:ATHLETE, I feel this article harms the criteria for notable college football athlete. His USC bio shows nothing notable (in fact, unlike key players
, there is no detailed information).

If the subject actually builds a successful, notable career at USC --starting in games, gaining significant playing time (and hopefully getting NFL, CFL or even Arena attention), then we have an existing article that can be quickly restored. The precedent has certainly been set: Clay Matthews III rose from a little-known walk-on to being a scholarship starting LB/DE this season and a solid NFL Draft prospect. Until Gatena reaches that point, Delete. Bobak (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all I would like to say that this is an excellent nomination and I agree with you on (almost) every point. The only thing I would disagree with you on is 10,000 new articles that would be created. I would argue that it would be even more because you have to factor in the several thousand players who formerly played NCAA-D1 football and have not gone pro. That said, Delete per nom. Tavix (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well-written rationale for deletion. I'm a regular contributor to college football player articles, and I too agree that Gatena does not yet deserve his own article per Wikipedia guidelines. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ndenison talk 19:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Although the requirements for
    WP:BIO requirements. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Reply, how so? Tavix (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I fail to see this also. Besides football all he has done is been medically discharged from the Air Force Academy, interned for a Lieutenant Governor of California, had a short aired on CNN, and currently attends grad school. How does he meet
    WP:BIO? Ndenison talk 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
He has been mentioned in the media enough to meet my standards for notability.[1]... I am also a little baffled that this was relisted after only 7 days. If there was a doubt about the closure it should be taken to
WP:DRV not relisted. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep well sourced article. I see arguments like "we'd have too many articles if we include an article for every player" (which means truly nothing because we're not talking about every other player, but this player in particular) and "He's a walk-on without a scholarship" which also means nothing in itself--lots of great players were walk-on without scholarship. I see good sources, I see items of interest, I see verifiability. Everything else seems to be a matter of interpretation of what is "notable enough" and I come down on the side of if he wasn't notable, why do we find articles that cover him?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Most, if not all, of the sources cited in the article are not "independent of the subject" as defined in
    WP:N. Gatena will naturally get coverage by these sources since they are written by those who have strong connections to him. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The outcome was "no consensus" and would've been better served as a relist. Besides, he doesn't cut any notability. He's a walk-on, scout player on a team that I've got Featured Article familiarity with. If you want to see a notable scout team player from that very season, see Mitch Mustain and compare the two. --Bobak (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Notability was proven in the last AFD. No need to re-hash old arguments. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How was notability proven in the "no consensus" previous AfD? The arguments given for keep were "he is going to be something big". And incorrect interpretations of awards (he was given a "scholar-athlete" award in high school, not notable as an athlete by any means). He is one of tens of thousands of people are listed in the various high school prospect pages and articles. --Bobak (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This online encyclopedia was established to document information using a set of unified rules and standards. This article meets those rules and those standards. Why is this case being repetitively disputed by the same wikipedia user using the same arguments? According to this article which does cite various credible sources, Gatena has received many accolades, earned an honorable discharge from the United States Air Force, played for 3 division 1 schools, and has accomplished earning his masters degree all while competing at the highest level of amateur football possible. Gatena's online USC bio was never finished because he was a late transfer not because he is not credible. Comparing Gatena to his teammates is irrelevant. If his teammates meet the standards for

WP:ATHLETE
then they should have an article.

By comparing Gatena to others you create a variable standard for establishing

WP:ATHLETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99Legend (talk • contribs
) 01:03, 26 December 2008


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Gatena_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1141948574"