Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bart Tanski (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Bart Tanski
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

If we are going by WP:ATHLETE, which seems the pretty clear choice for determing notability, Tanski does not meet the criterion for High school athletes (yes, he played at Bowling Green, but he was a walk-on and never won any national awards or recognition, so his case would be even weaker if we used the college athlete criterion.) The high school criterion states

'':High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage...The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability.

It was pointed out in previous nominations that his coverage has neither been sustained, substantial, nor outside noteworthy non-local news sources. Do quick news search on any search engine you like, the only result I found is that he has "completed passes," and that was just a local paper covering a game. Most news-coverage of him took place nearly 7 years ago, all of it was local (Ohio), and it was all routine interviews focused on a single event (his Mr. Football Award). Any somewhat more recent coverage (which is still old) was by local papers asking him questions about his award, and his thoughts on later recipients of the Mr. Football award, which was also pointed out in previous in nominations.

A mention in Mr. Football Award (Ohio) under the year he won is sufficient coverage for Bart Tanski. He does not warrant his own page unless he receives some other form of national recognition for his college career, or if he is drafted and plays games on a professional level. Nonagon13 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.

Nonagon13 (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep no new arguments for deletion have been introduced, except "the news articles are old" -- but notability is not temporary. I maintain that the subject has achieved notability for the reasons I outlined the last time we had this discussion.  Barring any reason given to change position, I still say it's a keeper, espeically with the buzz created from his college playing which is more than enough to pass WP:GNG even if WP:ATHLETE is not met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I came down on the delete side last time, but it was a close call (5 to 3) that was legitimately closed as no consensus.  The prior AfD was earlier this year.  I'm not a fan of re-listing an AfD like this simply because one side doesn't care for the prior closure.  Nothing has really changed, and I don't see a good reason to re-open this. Cbl62 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Further comment Something's odd about this nom. The original nom was by a user User:TheRunningDude whose only Wikipedia edits ever were to nominate this article for deletion.  The new nomination is by another user User:Nonagon13 whose only Wikipedia edits ever are to nominate this article for deletion.  It seems a bit unusual that a brand new user would cite policy in detail in his first Wikpedia edits which are this nomination.  Is there a hidden agenda here?  I always like to assume good faith but these factors make me wonder. Can Nonagon clarify please? Cbl62 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Worth considering. Nice catch.  (p.s. you're right, last time was "no consensus")--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Dirtlawyer1 and Cbl62 in the last AFD. I really didn't understand the no consensus close while there was well-reasoned rationales in the delete side that was stronger than the keep side (Ret.Prof doesn't count, he always votes per X keep on every AFD with a keep comment without looking at the article). High school football player with only a brief amount of fame and hardly college football. Now a private individual, this falls under WP:BLP1E as there is no sourcing outside his high school career, and WP:ATHLETE. Lets not keep biographies with the faintest amount of coverage as it will only cause problems in the end. Secret account 03:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question How do you know that Ret.Prof doesn't look at the articles? Are you sitting there when it happens?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I seen dozens of AFDs he's been involved in, all with the same rationale, some within minutes of each other. That doesn't indicate an editor who studies AFDs arguments closely. Secret account 17:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Or maybe the editor completes review and research of a set of outstanding AFDs all at once and then goes back to make comments later. I've done that, I doubt I'm alone.  Further, some of the more "stubby" articles can be reviewed in a minute or two.  In either case, the assertion that the editor doesn't even look at the article is pure speculation and is an argument against the person.  I see no reason to assume bad faith.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep this seems like 'I didn't like how the last AfD turned out, so lets try it again.' No new information has become available and no new arguments are being advanced that have not already been considered.  Both the Nom and Secret's argument expressly state that their basis is on what was previously discussed.  Without new information or a new argument that has not been previously considered, the article should be kept based on the result of the last AfD. RonSigPi (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well WP:BLP1E/WP:ONEEVENT trumps here, and there is no evidence that the subject ever met GNG in the first place, except for a small rash of articles that were released following him winning a regional award. Also just because the article was kept doesn't mean it can't be nominated again, especially one that ended up as no consensus. Secret account 17:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not one event, so WP:ONEEVENT doesn't even apply, much less trump anything. The article covers the individual, not an event around the individual.  Yes, the "Mr. Football" would be one event, but there is also the 2008-2012 college football seasons at Bowling Green.  Stubby?  Sure.  Incomplete?  You bet.  In dire need of detail?  Of course.  One event?  Not even close.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But would we be discussing this article, if it was about his Bowling Green career only? Of course not. One event applies. Secret account 18:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL also applies to the speculation if something didn't happen. No one has any idea what the article or his life would have looked like if he hadn't won "Mr. Football" but instead went straight to Bowling Green.  Maybe instead of entering football in college he would have focused on physics and created breakthrough technology to save the world or built a better mousetrap.  However, I would say that his college football career and other events since then can only add to the potential notability and certainly not take away.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I question if this should be under WP:ONEEVENT. While winning the award is technically a single occurrence, it is actually the culmination of a season worth of work. My reading of WP:ONEEVENT (and brief review of its history) is more for isolated events that become newsworthy. Something like being victim of a crime that is featured on the news. Thought the award here for notability (and coverage following the award) is clearly not as important or significant, it is like saying winning the Heisman Trophy or the John Mackey Award are under WP:ONEEVENT. I would think that winners of these awards don't fall under WP:ONEEVENT since the award directly relates to an entire season. Likewise, I don't think I would file a cumulative award for an entire season under a single event. RonSigPi (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I also question if this should be under WP:BLP1E. First, as I say in my last point I don't know if you would call this a single event (addressing the 1st requirement). Second, I am not sure on the 2nd requirement of "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Being captain of the Bowling Green football team (now added to the article) and continuing on to play at a Division I school could be considered to go against the person being low-profile. Similar to my last point, someone who is a victim of a crime is likely going to fade away into obscurity quickly after coverage dies down. An athlete that is continuing a career on the next level with greater media attention is likely not remaining low profile. RonSigPi (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Further comment The wording of the nomination above really stretches WP:ROUTINE far beyond its intent. The comment that it "excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications" does not match the wording in WP:ROUTINE, specifically "sports scores" -- some of these sources include basic box scores, but others cover the subject in detail.  Just because it is a "sports article" does not make it "routine".--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When a game happens every week, yes its considered routine coverage, if the subject gets individual articles written about him then its not routine. Again the coverage is mostly limited to one high school award six years ago and then it vanishes. Secret account 01:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what WP:ROUTINE says which limits itself to pre-planned coverage and box scores. Since there is more coverage than that we're clearly beyond routine coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong as it uses that as a few examples, but not the only examples.


 * "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine.[4] Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories)." Note the sport matches, which you clearly should know. Secret account 19:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article in question isn't an about a sports match. It doesn't apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Articles for deletion/Bart Tanski (2nd nomination). DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify further? Secret account 01:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Strong Delete Exceedingly minor schoolboy American football player, whose achieved a minor US state award for best high school football player. Afraid not. It seems we are trying to dramatically widen or perhaps dilute the WP:GNG guidelines to such an extent that anybody with a tiny modicum of recognition, can now get an article. Articles like these dilute the spirit and letter of WP. scope_creep talk 19:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:LOCALFAME covers the idea of "Subjective importance" and states that it is "not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions."  However, I do find it interesting how you seem to be concerned about widening or diluting the spirit of WP:GNG as if those who support keeping the article are making it say more than it actually is, and yet at the same time you call a Division I college football team captain a "schoolboy" -- which can reduce the subject to be less than the subject actually is.  That argument kind of turns in on itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON and not notable for anything else.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 "Coach Steve Trivisonno was unafraid to make an immediate comparison to former Mr. Football winner Bart Tanski, who led the Cardinals to the 2006 and 2007..." and Plain Dealer Sep 30, 2011 "He is a bigger (6-3, 195), stronger version of Mentor's 2007 Mr. Football, Bart Tanski, who led the Cardinals to state finals his junior and senior years..." Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Continued to be noted years later, establishing lasting significance as in Plain Dealer - Aug 26, 2011
 * 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.