Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Richard Gatena

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 delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Richard Gatena

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. This article has been deleted via CSD a number of times in the past, the only difference with this copy is his inclusion in Forbes. Unfortunately the Forbes article is only a brief discussion of the article subject. Article appears to fail

WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there may be notability there, but it's hard to tell because of all the promotion. This is an encyclopedia, not a free web hosting service. I'd put this down as violating
WP:NPV or I'd even allow "ignore the rules" and get rid of this. If someone would re-write it like an actual encyclopedic entry then I'd reconsider it, but for now there are so many things wrong with it that it would be better for Wikipedia to delete it. I'd support the Speedy also, as it has been tagged for that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
And I have removed the speedy tag. Due to the Forbes reference, that is possibly a significant new development since the last discussion at
talk) 19:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm good either way.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the article is not written properly, that doesn't mean it should be deleted... that means it should be adjusted accordingly. 99Legend (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC) — 99Legend (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
talk) 20:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
How do I do this?99Legend (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were enthusiastic about this particular subject, I would--but I'm not. Looking at some of the older AFDs on this, it looks like I was on the other side. I guess I've changed my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still not notable as either an athlete or a businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So how do all of the new sources... including Forbes... not qualify this article as legitimate? There is a large variety of sources from many different kinds of outlets over a decade.--99Legend (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC) — 99Legend (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - The
"references" are all trivial in nature. reddogsix (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Syndicated Radio, Forbes, Published Book, Local & National Newspapers, Blogs, University Publications... What would be considered not "trivial" in nature. From what I see the guidelines are being met. If they are not being met, how can they be improved upon? I'm not really getting a lot of feedback on how to actually improve the article, just that people seem to not like it very much. Last time it was discussed there weren't enough sources, or the sources weren't big enough, or the article seemed to not based on facts. All of those issues have been corrected. What else can be done here? 99Legend (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mere mentions are trivial, which is what most of them are. Directory listings are trivial. Profile pages are the same as directory listings and don't count. His own publications and speeches are self-published works and don't count. Blogs have no editorial oversight and don't count. Right now the article looks like a collection of all possible references, no matter how trivial (a link to an Amazon page? Get real) as a way to create an illusion of notability. Exactly what references do you feel demonstrate significant coverage in reliable independent sources? Please see
talk) 00:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I find it interesting that mainstream magazines, national radio shows, and media that has received millions of views are considered trivial. The "mentions" are used to back up the facts written in the article. Prior to including the "mentions" in such things like newspapers, etc... it was contested that the facts needed to be backed by some kind of source. These are legitimate sources that have been published over a period of years. There are more sources that will continue to be published over the next 3-5 years. At what point does one cross the threshold? There are hundreds if not thousands of other articles on wikipedia with less notably, a smaller variety of sources (if any), and those articles are in good standing. So what exactly is the issue here and how can it be adjusted? What specifically needs to happen? What I keep getting are different reasons based on subjective opinion and I am sent to things like
WP:RS but what I don't understand is how something like Forbes, or a nationally syndicated talk show, or subscription based magazine like CSQ, or a published book, or a University dont meet those requirements. 99Legend (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2014 (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.