Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Gatena (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99Legend (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 8 February 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Steve Gatena

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

After two low-vote "no consensus" AfDs, this is the third nomination for a non-notable college football player. The subject is a walk-on (non-scholarship) college football player at a major college program in the United States. While this article is well written, the bottom line is the subject is not notable under WP:Athlete.

In the time between the last AfD and this one, another article by the same group of editors, James Edward Miller (a scholarship athlete), was successfully deleted without nearly as much vociferous debate as the previous AfDs.

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 given at the school's awards banquet (along with such awards as "most inspirational player", etc...). He has never started a game for the program, been anywhere meaningful on the depth chart, 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.

None of the sources cited in the article are significant: the have either minor mentions in local papers (which local high school kids got scholarships, who got accepted to a military academy, etc) or are written in student newspapers and are not "independent of the subject" as defined in WP:GNG. The sources are hardly "independent of the subject" and are "unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large" per WP:N.

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. College football is not a black/white "include all/delete all" situation, and this player falls onto the non-notable side.

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 with articles here, there is no detailed information). As a side note: I previously created the WP:FA, 2007 USC Trojans football team and have a pretty good understanding of the USC Trojans and college football.

I should note that this article has a handful of strong defenders who have solely worked on this article, likely family and friends.

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) 17:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Maintenance tag, and future AFD discussions

I noticed that the cleanup tags were removed, I retrospect, I realize I should have explained why I placed the tags I did. Simply put, the article fails the basic criteria for notability. Here are the problems:

  • Most of the sources are primary sources. To establish notability, the subject has to have received significant coverage from publications that are independent of the subject. I see that most of the sources are athletic department websites. These certainly are not considered independent. And the one local newspaper article most likely would not be considered independent either, as it's essentially profiling a member of its own community.


  • Lack of significant coverage - Other than the aforementioned local paper article and the campus paper article, none of the sources could be considered significant. They mention the subject, but aren't specifically about them.
  • WP:ATHLETE - In past AFDs, WP:ATHLETE has been mentioned as justification for keep, but this is a misunderstanding of policy. "Highest amateur level" is meant to include athletes from sports that don't have a fully professional level, and the top athletes compete in Olympics or World Championships. It is not to meant to include hundreds of thousands of current and former NCAA Division I football players, most of who have never done, or will do, anything to be notable.
  • Trivia - I see that one of the "keep" arguments was that Gatena has attended three different colleges. Well, that's WP:INTERESTING, but it's certainly not a claim to notability. If it was, it would be subject of reliable, third-party coverage. It doesn't seem that way. And really, who gives a crap that Pete Caroll thinks he's the team's political pundit? Finally, being a grad student doesn't make him all that special. Since NCAA athletes are eligible for five years, it's pretty common for players to pursue graduate degrees while they're still eligible.


So yeah, I have no earthly idea how this article has survived two AFDs. I am restoring the cleanup tag, and removing the YouTube link, since Wikipedia is not a linkdump. --Mosmof (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Maintenance tag, and future AFD discussions

  • The sources listed for this topic range from large to small. These sourced include The Los Angeles Times (a large periodical), The Thousand Oaks Acorn (a small periodical), The Aggie & The Daily Trojan (two student newspapers), and Scout.com (one of the largest national databases of high school and college athletes). Combined, these sources have millions of active readers. Each source is touted as credible and all are independent of the subject(third party sources). Moreover, a simple google search will reveal an abundance of alternative credible sources on this subject.
    • I never said the articles weren't credible, but none, individually or combined, meet the requirements for notability. The operative phrase here is "significant coverage", and none of the third-party sources provided offer significant coverage. Of the two LA Times blog posts, one merely mentions Gatena as a team award winner, and the other is a brief writeup in an article about USC walk-ons. The Scout.com is a very, very brief bio that pretty much all high school football prospects get. None of these could be considered significant coverage. The Aggie and The Daily Trojan are certainly not third-party sources, and a small local paper could not be considered a third-party source when it is covering a member of its own community. --Mosmof (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, if you search a media database such as lexis nexis you will find feature stories in newspapers such as The Daily News and LA Times including other relevant material on this subject. These stories however are not needed as sources for the article because the cited sources suffice. College newspapers and small periodicals are third party sources. If The Los Angeles Times does a story on a person who is in fact an Angelian, they are writing about a member of their community. This does not mean the source is now not a third-party source. My point, the size of the source does not determine whether or not it is a third party source. Additionally, Wikipedia states that university newspapers are credible sources.98.149.104.138 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Primary Sources, Wikipedia states that "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia" and that "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." This can be read on Wikipedia's page about primary sources.
    • First, "university press" is not the same thing as a campus paper or an athletic department website. Considering the independent sources in this article (i.e. publications not tied to the subject's school or community) provide minimal coverage, the concern about over-reliance on primary sources is a reasonable one. --Mosmof (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand what "university press" means, if you would like to read up further on this topic you can do a media search in a media database and find an abundance of verifiable information on this topic.98.149.104.138 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, any media search of this subject on any database of credible periodicals will reveal feature stories, significant comments, and blogs about this athlete. Some of these sources include The Los Angeles Times & Daily News amongst other well known sources. To find such information simply search the subjects name in a database like Lexis Nexis.
  • This topic of WP:ATHLETE has previously been disputed on two occasions, the ruling of discussion 1 was Keep, the ruling on discussion 2 was no consensus. Regardless of cause or reason, the first result of discussion 1 was KEEP and was determined by the active editor Malinaccier . The result can be viewed on the 10 December discussion page. Results of the second discussion were no consensus.
    • Consensus can change, and even if we pretended that the first AFD result was a consensus for keep, the 2nd was a non consensus for either keep or delete. I'm not sure if another AFD or WP:DRV is appropriate here, but I do plan to bring it up at one of the forums to get a definitive ruling. --Mosmof (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia has a standardized step by step process for submitting an article for deletion. Please refer to Wikipedia's policies on this matter as these procedures have been created to create a standardized fair way to dispute Wikipedia articles. 98.149.104.138 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as WP:INTERESTING, being an extremely recent occurrence and semi-private matter (which the NCAA cannot disclose), the topic of this subjects eligibility regarding his petitioning and transferring has only been covered by a limited number of journalist. Reliable third-party coverage on this issue is listed in the article and further coverage will continue to emerge. The quote from Coach Pete Carroll was neither said by the subject nor written by the subject, however it acts as a solid example of this subject being both an interesting and unique NCAA Football Player. Not all NCAA athletes are eligible for five years (because some do not red shirt) and it is very uncommon for Division 1 college football players to pursue a graduate degree while playing. An analysis of graduation rates and count of graduate students will show that less than .5% of all NCAA Football Players are enrolled in graduate school. A simple phone call to the NCAA can confirm these statistics.
    • But the lack of coverage means it's your opinion (i.e. POV) that this makes Gatena notable. It doesn't matter what the reason is, if his multiple transfers and eligibility issues aren't covered by journalists, then obviously, it's not that notable. If it's notable enough to be included in a Wikipedia, and be used as a criterion for notability, then it requires significant coverage. WHy not wait till all the national magazine articles about this guy comes out? If this little tidbit makes Gatena so unique and special, then where's the feature article? If there isn't one, then it's merely interesting. As for the grad students playing football, sure, it's a small number, but it's not unheard of. --Mosmof (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There has not been lack of coverage on this matter, there has been limited coverage. These interesting facts are including in the article because they are relevant to the topic. These are not the only facts in this article which make the subject notable. It is a combination of these interesting facts and achievements that make this subject notable enough to satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for an article.98.149.104.138 (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct in stating that Wikipedia is not a link dump. On the other hand, this link supports the article and provides readers with audio-visual information on the subject. Because Wikipedia does not support this type of media, it is relevant to have a link included in this article. This link is to help educate subjects on the position this athlete plays, if they are in fact unfamiliar with the sport of football, and show this specific athlete playing (as opposed to a link of an alternate athlete of the same position)
  • This article has survived two AFD's because the administrators reviewed it in a non-bias manner and determined the article should stand. This subject, different than "hundreds of thousands of current and former NCAA Division I football players, most of who have never done, or will do, anything to be notable" has in fact done many things notable and interesting some of which are included in his bio. Regardless of your opinion or analysis on the matter, these notable achievements are verifiable in many different reliable sources. As stated by wikipedia, the threshold for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability not truth or opinion. 98.149.104.138 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up Tag Page Edits

  • The questioned notability clean up tag has been removed because this subject meets wikipedia's notability requirement which states "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." WP:Note
  • The questioned Neutral Point of View clean up tag has been removed because neutrality has been established by "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." This can be read in Wikipedia's NPOV policy at Neutral point of view.
  • The questioned sources clean up tag has been removed because this article meets wikipedia's requirement of Verifiability which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true" and it's requirements of reliable sources that state "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "in general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Gatena_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=269362711"