Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Gatena (2nd 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 01:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Steve Gatena
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable college football player: This is the second AfD, the original closed with only 6 votes and no consensus (2 keep votes were from the article's creators). While I am firmly on the side that WP:ATHLETE should include notable American college football players (not all), this individual has --as of yet-- not done enough to distinguish himself. As of right now, he is a walk-on, non-scholarship player (see here); his only highlight is a 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)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.   —Bobak (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.   —Bobak (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   —Bobak (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Delete per nom.  Ndenison  talk  19:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Although the requirements for WP:ATHLETE might not have been met my feeling is that he meets the general WP:BIO requirements.  Gtstricky Talk or C 19:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply, how so? Tavix (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * He has been mentioned in the media enough to meet my standards for notability.... 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.  Gtstricky Talk or C 20:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You do realize that no less than thousands of people are listed in the various high school prospect pages and articles, right? Every major high school player in Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston and every major media market would suddenly become notable under that precedent.  The outcome was "no consensus" and would've been better served as a relist. --Bobak (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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. Most, if not all, of the sources cited in the article are not "independent of the subject" as defined in WP:GNG. Some of the sources cited include the USC and UCLA student newspapers (the Daily Trojan and The California Aggie, respectively) the athletic websites of the two schools, Pete Carroll's website, and two other websites that look like fansites (daviswiki.org and insidesocal.com). These sources account for 8 of the 12 sources currently listed. As for the other 4 sources, one is Scout.com, a recruiting website that provides information for over thousands of college football and basketball prospects who are not all notable, and much of that information they give is only available to subscribers. Two other references point to a Los Angeles Times blog that seems to cover every little thing that the Trojan football team is doing, and it's also written by a USC alumnus who follows the football team pretty well (see his description). The final source on toacorn.com appears to be an article written by Gatena's hometown newspaper that covers the schools the football players of his high school decided to attend. These references are hardly "independent of the subject" and are "unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large" per 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)


 * Weak keep. Agree that this should have gone to DRV if people were unhappy with the outcome. While he barely cuts it notability-wise, he's mentioned non-trivially in plenty of sources. Oren0 (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep- Notability was proven in the last AFD. No need to re-hash old arguments. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete Reads as if he is a great guy, but not notable enough to have his own wikipedia article. No notable athletic accomplishments that I can see.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 02:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet either WP:ATHLETE or the general notability requirements of WP:BIO. Lots of references, but they all have significant problems for a notability claim (school papers and such). gnfnrf (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete please - I was surprised to see this had an article on the 2008 season article roster. Just compare him to the others linked, he's not notable for football. --32.145.34.129 (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. As stated previously, notability was proven in the last AFD. No need to re-hash old arguments. The amount of athletes who meet wikipedia's notability standards are irrelevant as are the other players on a said athletes team. It sounds like user Bobak has a personal vendetta against the articles subject. If other USC Football Players have a wikipedia why not this player? Furthermore, why not all players who meet wikipedia's standards for WP:ATHLETE?

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 bio's. One could speculate that if Gatena was still playing for UC Davis he would be the only graduate student on his football team and be a possible All American. Then would he be credible enough? If wikipedia used team comparison as a standard for listing an article many professional and amateur athletes who are second string on championship teams could not be listed on wikipedia. Furthermore, those who are first string on the worst teams would have bio's. This is why wikipedia has established consistent standards for WP:ATHLETE, so there could be a fair, uniformed standard for listing individuals who fall under WP:ATHLETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99Legend (talk • contribs) 01:03, 26 December 2008
 * Reply. When others compare Gatena to other college football players, they are not making a decision under AP:ATHLETE, they are doing so under WP:BIO. None of them are admissible under WP:ATHLETE, which requires a football player to play in a "fully professional league."  The "highest level of amateur sports" refers to Olympic or World Championship competition, not college-level participation. No college football player meets the guideline just by playing college football, they have to have significant coverage beyond just playing.  See Colt McCoy for example.  Professional football players, however, need nothing beyond playing pro football, see Kerry Cash. So the question to ask here is whether he meets the general WP:BIO standards of notability, and I think he does not.  You are free to argue that he does, but if your argument is that he meets WP:ATHLETE, you misread that guideline.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 07:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply. Well in that case Gatena's bio clearly falls under the "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" category. The rarity of his playing for 3 different division 1 football schools should alone qualify him for the WP:BIO, let alone the uniqueness of his graduate school standing and honorable discharge from the United States Air Force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99Legend (talk • contribs) 11:00, 26 December 2008


 * Keep Bobak compares Gatena, a two time schoarlship athlete and one time walk on who has previously started at another Division 1 football school to college walk on kickers and punters that will never play. Clearly this is a bias and invalid comparison. This athlete has not only played and started for one division 1 college football team, but he has played in games for two different division 1 college teams and been a member of three. Additionally, his transfer case is very unique and the only one of its kind. Gatena has transferred to 3 different division one football schools without penalty of ineligibility. That fact alone makes this bio significant enough to remain on wikipedia.Gosugatena (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can add an article about anything, and one expects only factual corrections by those with something to add or emend. There is no "means test" or popularity contest, nor should there be. With search engines one can find the material one wishes without having to see much of what one does not, depending on the cleverness of one's search terms. Any notion that one has to reach some level of excellence to be listed flies against the whole nature of the worldwide web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sternlight (talk • contribs) 04:29, 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.