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 03:32, 9 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]

  • Keep – Likely passes WP:Athlete... If he has indeed played for USC, which is a Division I team "the highest amateur level" for American football. Some have argued college players don't meet WP:ATH if there is a professional level for the same sport. That is nonsense, and reading into WP:ATH what isn't there. WP:Athlete says: "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." As for the number of players who meet this criterion: Who cares? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and there almost 3 million articles right now. Even if there were 100,000 college sports player articles, that would only be about three percent of all current articles. This nomination is about this player only, not any number of other players. It isn't about successfully walking on or not, either. The line of inclusion is game action. Has he, or has he not, seen action in an NCAA Division I game? Strikehold (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I do not see the point you're trying to make. I assume it is in good faith, but what bearing do my contributions have on the discussion at hand? And more importantly: following your logic, if an individual's lack of an article implied a lack of notability, there would be no need for any further articles. Strikehold (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm saying that if a walk-on, a player who is brought onto a team to help fill the program and provide depth, warrants an article by virtue of being on a D-IA team, then all the players from every D-IA school --from ACC's Terps to the Sun Belt's Western Kentucky Hilltoppers-- would warrant their own articles for making the team. Are you willing to make the same vote for all of those inevitable AfDs? --Bobak (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is saying that this player was brought onto the team to help fill the program and provide depth? It seems to me that one year ago USC's offensive line was the only group in question for the 2008 season and to my knowledge USC hasn't had a problem with filling their program or providing depth... But what do these situations have to do with this Wikipedia article? Both are irrelevant in determining deletion.99Legend (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misinterpret what I said slightly; I never said by simply "being on a D-IA team". If a player (walk-on or otherwise) sees action in a season game then they are notable under WP:ATH as it is currently written. Strikehold (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strikehold: WP:ATHLETE is part of WP:BIO. WP:ATHLETE consists of additional criteria to the basic criteria of WP:BIO, which states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]". This article does not meet this basic criteria - see my rationale as well as Mosmof's below. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -The fact that one other teammate has also achieved the notable status of graduate student does not trump this subjects achievements. Does the fact that there are many other Wikipedia administrators who trump the fact that you Bobak have also earned that status? No, and does the fact that there are many more administrators who have contributed to many more articles than you downgrade your importance to the Wikipedia community? Definitely not. Only comparing this subject to other subjects who have achieved more than him is not the way to go about determining whether or not this article should stand. Moreover, downplaying his achievements, is merely attacking this subject and those who have awarded him on a personal level. This is a very petty defense. The awards are what they are, thats all. Additionally, the service team award Gatena had received was given to him over many other players on the 2008 USC Trojans football team that have Wikipedia articles. These players, who's profiles Wikipedia user Bobak has either contributed to or created, could be considered less notable than the subject in dispute; however, Bobak has taken no action against these articles. On the contrary, he has supported and contributed to them. Does the fact that Gatena was awarded this service team award over those players mean that they are beneath him or that they should not be on Wikipedia, absolutely not. Because I believe those articles should be listed on Wikipedia along with Gatena's and because this discussion is not about those articles I will not name the articles. Although, I do believe the intense scrutiny of this article after repeated submissions for deletion by Bobak show his extreme negative bias towards this player.
    • As a side note Bobak, the Most Inspirational Player award is a very important award, I'm not sure if you have any competitive athletic experience on a top amateur level such as the subject in question, but if you did than you would understand the importance of Most Inspirational Player. In fact Ray Lewis a very notable football player has been given this award many times. The Most Inspirational Player plays a key role in team morale and has a direct effect on achieving victories.
  • Back to my keep argument, this article is on Wikipedia because this subject is unique and meets Wikipedia's requirements. It is well written, it follows the guidelines of Wikipedia, and it is a neutral article that contains verifiable information in credible third-party sources. In no way does the ruling on article attempt to act as common law for "all Division I-FBS (top level) 'scholarship athletes'"(Bobak) and in no way is it an attempt to legitimize articles for over 10,000 college athletes. Again, comparing this subject to others has no bearing on this subjects notability. This subject is very unique, interesting, and notable and this is why this article is here. User Bobak can continue to compare Gatena to other players with more publicity and more awards and not compare him to the thousands of players with less awards and less publicity but it will not negate the fact that this subject is notable and verifiable. This article should be voted upon based of this subject alone and done so in accordance with Wikipedia's rules and policies. This article is not subject to a voting war or opinionated ruling but deserves a non-biased and impartial look. The culmination of achievements and unique accomplishments of this subject are in fact why this article exists. Whether or not two people vote keep or two thousand people vote keep the bearing of deletion should be based on factual evidence. Wikipedia is a tool for all users to positively contribute information. The creator's and editor's of this article or any other articles whether family, teachers, coaches or friends is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles are not based on a popularity and number of keep votes, they are based on the rules and regulations set forth by the organization of Wikipedia and its members. This article clearly meets those policies.
    • And might I remind you, the subject who's article you are attempting to delete is outstanding member of his community, team, and school and shines a positive light upon all NCAA athletes. This citizen is not a criminal or poor student, as a USC Alum, why would you Bobak have a bias against this subjects article on Wikipedia? Sounds strange to me So for the third time, I vote keep. 99Legend (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC) — 99Legend (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • question I'm not a fan of college football, but I interpret participating at the highest amateur level as participating significantly in the actual competitive games, not being in the reserve or having few minutes on the field. I believe that for professional football or baseball, or for the Olympics, we count any appearance on the field as sufficient, but i am not convinced we should do so here, especially as playing in college football unless there is some special distinction is apparently considered a borderline case in general. DGG (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - Gatena was a member of the "service team". If the service team is anything like scout teams at other colleges, it means he played on a team that provided opposition to the first team in practices. Scout team members would generally only see token playing time at end of games where the result is no longer in question. --Mosmof (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Gatena also started his first full healthy season of college football for the Division 1 UC Davis Football team. Additionally, he has played in games with the USC Trojans Football team. 99Legend (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I question whether Great West could reasonably be considered the "highest amateur level" of football. Considering that there are 120 (?) FBS schools and the huge gulf between the dozen or two schools that realistically compete for the national title and the rest of the field, I would say not. Anyway, as long as we're going with a strict (and selective) reading of WP:ATHLETE, I should point out that it doesn'te xplicitly define Div-1A ball as the highest level. Mosmof (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) I would not consider I FCS/I-AA as the "highest amateur level" of American football because although the teams do play I FBC/I-A teams, they do not compete for the same title, and FBS teams are only allowed to count one game against an FCS team toward bowl eligibility. (2) It is not a "selective" reading of WP:ATH, it is a literal reading of it. I'm sorry that you don't like the comma and the word "usually" that follows it, but that does not make the first clause any less authoritative. Strikehold (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you missed my point (or I wasn't very clear). I'll happily concede that the second WP:ATH could include Div IA college football players. What I'm pointing out is, that WP:ATH does not explicitly define Div-1A as the "highest amateur level" of the sport, so the argument that WP:ATH qualifies all Div 1A football players as notable is subjective. It's not an unreasonable opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. --Mosmof (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize then, I did misunderstand you. Still, I don't see a reasonable argument against Division I FBS being considered the "highest amateur level" of American football. If not, then what? Strikehold (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My quibble with qualifying all players at all FBS schools is twofold. 1) Most FBS schools do not realistically compete for the national title. Sure, they might play against each other, but SMU and Texas couldn't be considered the same "level" except by classification. Try soccer for comparison - most nations in the world compete in the World Cup at the qualifying level, but only 32 make the quadrennial finals. United States, which has played the last four World Cup finals, and Barbados are technically in the same federation and at the same level, but only one is at the highest level of the sport by reasonable standards. Likewise, I could reasonably argue that only BCS conference schools, Notre Dame, and at-large schools that have made BCS Bowls to be at "the highest level". (2) There is no indication that Gatena has played meaningful snaps for USC. In fact, he received a service team (scout team) player award, meaning he was not an important player by any stretch of the imagination. As a third-string center, I'd be surprised if he received anything other than garbage time snaps. Mosmof (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, no, that is not a reasonable argument because you are applying a completely arbitrary dichotomy to a sports league with an existing hierarchy. The meaning of "level" is quite clear from the usage. In English rugby, the Guiness Premiership is one "level"; in college football, Division I FBS is one "level"; in Italian association football, Serie A is one "level". In association football, they actually call it "levels" (See: American soccer pyramid). By your logic, the 1989 Georgia Tech football team wasn't notable, because they weren't Notre Dame or Nebraska... but they won the national title in 1990 with the same coach and, presumably, most of the same players. And the U.S. has been in the last four World Cup finals??? Are you talking about assoc. football? The U.S. hasn't even advanced to the second round in the last four World Cups... Strikehold (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Georgia Tech is in the ACC, a BCS conference. I don't see your point. I was throwing out the BCS example as a possible, narrower, interpretation of "highest amateur level", and it would be foolish to think notable schools outside the major conferences wouldn't be considered.
  2. I meant World Cup Finals as in the tournament (as opposed to World Cup qualifiers), but I see where you are confused. FWIW, USA reached the second round (Round of 16) in 1994 and the quarterfinal in 2002. My point stands though - USA and Barbados are in the same confederation and essentially the same level. One is a team that competes at a world class level, the other is eligible to compete at a world class level, but doesn't.
  3. You are comparing leagues with no more than 20 teams to an entire classification of schools with 120 members, most of which have not the resources, ability, or willingness to compete with the elite teams.
  4. Gatena may have played for a team at the highest amateur level, but there's no indication that he did anything other than help run out the clock. Again, I don't see how a scout team could be considered the "highest level". Mosmof (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(undent for readability) I think the way I am reading WP:ATH is the most clear-cut, objective interpretation. "Compete" means play in a regular season or postseason game; "highest amateur level" means Division I FBS for American football. To say this or that about how he was also a scout team player or only played throw-away time is to begin applying somewhat arbitrary, subjective, and impossible to measure criteria. It is also reading way more into WP:ATH than is actually there.
Utah is a non-BCS team and they were declared 2008 national champions by a few non-consensus selectors (and they easily could have been named AP or other consensus selector champions had OU blown out UF). My point being, every game of the season has a wide-reaching ripple effect, and it is hard for me to justify saying the Texas Tech starting line-up is notable, but the Rice starting line-up is not notable.
What does number of teams in a league have to do with anything? There are hundreds of national leagues in dozens of sports in the world. Sheer vastness does not in itself negate notability. Again, Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, and probably many times more bytes are wasted on AFDs like this than by the articles they address...
I fully support a reassessment of WP:ATH with the purpose of adding a specific American college sports clause. However, this is not the place to argue the interpretation of WP:ATH. I think the article's subject meets the criteria there, and pending change of WP:ATH, I think it should be retained.
Tottenham Hotspur hasn't been competitive for the Premiership title any time recently, and, hell, the Cincinnati Bengals haven't ever been to a Super Bowl, so... Just trying to prove a point about the fallacy of making arbitrary assumptions based on performance.
(Sidenote: I meant the U.S. did not advance to the second round in each of the last four World Cups, sorry). Strikehold (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've addressed the Utah exceptions (wait, when I wrote "BCS conference schools, Notre Dame, and at-large schools", what I meant here was "at-large BCS invitees" - oops). And while this may come off as self-serving, WP:ATH isn't all that helpful as a black-or-white AFD decider, since there is little agreement on its intent and I believe there is enough critical mass to get some sort of change. I don't like the idea of relying on an essentially lame duck criterion. I'd rather defer to WP:GNG, and the vast majority of college athletes will never receive non-trivial, independent coverage, and that's more true the further we get away from BCS conferences and the occasional outliers. Fair enough point on Spurs and Bengals, but at least almost all those players are subject of in-depth coverage from independent sources. A scout team offensive lineman who gets an occasional snap is not. Mosmof (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And therein lies part of the problem: offensive linemen in particular are the victims of statistical bias, but there is no doubting how essential their contributions are to successful teams. Centers and guards don't record receptions, sacks, TFLs, etc etc etc. Even defensive players lack stats pages on ESPN.com. Three of the "Seven Blocks of Granite" (arguably the most famous offensive line in history) don't even have wikipedia articles. That is part of the reason I favor my interpretation of WP:ATH. I would like to see the withdrawal of this nomination pending a change to WP:ATH for reasons extensively debated here. Strikehold (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of that is relevant when the article doesn't even pass the WP:V policy - most of the sources are not "reliable and independent" of the subject as defined by WP:SOURCES. Wikipedia should not have articles that are supported by sources that have been questioned throughout this debate, as well as the previous ones. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that he is a USC player is verified by the official USC website ("Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them") and an independent source in the Los Angeles Times. The article needs clean-up to remove other non-reliable sources (and the information cited from them), but it at the least has enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:V. Strikehold (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sources, in your opinion, fit the definition of "reliable" and "independent" as defined in WP:N? The Los Angeles Times source is actually a blog entry posted by a USC alum who seems to follow the football team very closely, and reports to the LA Times. This source isn't completely independent. Most of the other sources cited in the article are not reliable or independent of the subject. Taking out those sources as well as the information they cite would remove most of the information in the article. How much of the article would still exist if this massive deletion were to happen? Probably not much. Why even bother to have the article in that case? BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N - I've outlined the reasons in Talk:Steve Gatena, but to summarize, the Steve Gatena has not been a subject of significant coverage in multiple, third party sources.
    • A brief profile in an LA Times blog post about the USC's walk-on players that season is not significant coverage.
    • A campus paper article about a member of the school's football team is not a source independent of the subject.
    • A local paper article about a member of its own community (essentially a "local boy does good/about to do good") is not a source independent of its subject.
    • A scout.com profile, which is basically a shell page with basic attributes that are made for all high school football players who receive attention from colleges, is not significant coverage.
    • Team awards and a brief mention by a head coach do not constitute notability.
    • A mention in the list of the season's team award winners is neither significant nor third party coverage.
    • If you have to say It is important to note that Gatena's transfer case is very unique without source or attribution for the claim, then it's probably not that important.
    • I find it intellectually dishonest to read the first part of the amateur athlete criterion in WP:ATHLETE and say, "Yay! All Div 1 NCAA football players are in!" and ignore the second part, where the intent of the criterion is clarified.
    • Even if we did agree that playing at the highest level of college football did fulfill the requirement for WP:ATHLETE, we should note that Gatena won the USC Service Team Offensive Player of the Year, which indicates he was not a first team regular, so the claim that he played at the sport's highest amateur level becomes debatable. --Mosmof (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that Gatena has started for a Division 1 team and has played in almost two dozen Divison one college football games in both the Great West and Pac-10 college football conferences does make him notable. Also other feature stories in sources such as the Daily News and Rivals.com are independent third party sources. How many sources are needed and what is the purpose of a source? All facts in this article are clearly cited by reputable sources. In any academic setting they would serve as sufficient verifiable sources to confirm the facts listed are true. The argument that this article should be deleted, based off of the fact that the sources included in this article which serve to confirm the facts stated, may or may not be significant enough to you is completely bogus. Each source is legitimate. There are other legitimate sources out there not cited in this article and any academic level media search will reveal dozens of legitimate results on this subject.99Legend (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but there are no "featured" stories of Gatena cited in the article. A feature story is a "piece of journalistic writing that covers a selected issue in-depth". NONE of those articles sourced cover Gatena in depth. THESE articles are examples of feature stories: [1], [2], and [3]. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand what a feature story is, again a search of media databases will reveal feature stories written on this subject [4]. After a search, you will find such articles in sources like The Daily News, Los Angeles Times, California Aggie, Rivals.com, etc.. 99Legend (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Really? I did a Google searches with steve gatena with site:latimes.com and site:rivals.com, and I came up with passing mentions in the former and profiles/brief recruiting updates in the latter. Could you point me to a feature article on those sites? The Daily News articles I see in the article are of "local boy does really good" variety, and like the California Aggie articles, couldn't reasonably considered independent of the subject. Mosmof (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • 99Legend: Again, those are not feature stories. The coverage of Gatena on those articles is trivial - they are probably only 1-3 sentences that mention Gatena. If you really think there are articles that cover Gatena to a great extent (like those Mark Sanchez and Rey Maualuga articles I linked above), please provide them. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is not my responsibility to provide you the articles, if you would have read this full article [1] which is cited in the Wikipedia article you would find one full 700+ word feature article on the subject. Regardless of who is in the LA Times post [2] there is a short bio about Gatena. Another feature [3] also mentions Gatena in great depth. Again all sources are verifiable. Rivals.com contains 7 articles on Gatena [4] [5][6][7][8][9][10] none of which are even used as citation in his article. There are more sources out there however Wikipedia is not a linkdump and it is not necessary to include every article ever printed or published on this individual. 99Legend (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you really want the article to be kept, then you must provide the appropriate sources. It's not my responsibility to go look for them either. You have to present the links to the articles here, as you just did. You can't just say "there are more articles out there" without backing the statement up. Let's go over the articles you provided: the first one you cite is a local newspaper article. The majority of the article is about the 2003 Westlake High offensive line. All of the coverage about Gatena is trivial: that he is the "runt" of the offensive line, how he compares in size to the other o-linemen, a one-sentence quote, and his estimation on the bill in a team visit to a local restaurant. That is hardly "in-depth" coverage. The latimes blog entry includes information on all of the new walk-on players, and the post was written by a USC alum who covers the school's sports for the newspaper. Thus, this source is hardly independent of the subject. The Rivals articles, all dated in 2003, all cover his college recruiting -- his recruiting is trivial at best. Thousands of high school players receive this kind of coverage by recruiting services, and that by itself should not necessarily define the notability of a player. See Matt Barkley and Garrett Gilbert for examples of high school players who have met the notability standards of Wikipedia. IMHO, Gatena can definitely have his own article once the media proves he is a prospective NFL player, as Mark Sanchez, Rey Maualuga, Taylor Mays, Brian Cushing, and Fili Moala, among others, have. Right now, he hasn't yet. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ndenison talk 21:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:GNG is more clear--"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." Not all of the sources are "independent" of the subject as Mosmof clearly pointed out. This article fails WP:GNG and should thus be deleted. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are not enough of them (the reliable, independent ones) to establish the subject's notability per WP:GNG. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Google searches on this athlete show that many different media outlets have written about him. I dont know much about football, but thats notable enough for me — 99.129.215.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:27, February 8, 2009 (UTC)..
  • Keep –according to the logic presented by wikipedia user Strikehold I believe this individual article meets the WP:Athlete standards and requirements. In my opinion the sources listed are more than credible and this article goes above and beyond most Wikipedia articles in citing sources. This article is really well done, it is well written, well cited, and non-bias. It includes a lot of positive information on the subject but after searching for other information none could be found. I actually think this article could be a model Wikipedia bio article.71.119.123.46 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC) — 71.119.123.46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As do I. Ndenison talk 23:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I base my comment on 3 tries by others to delete this entry. Let's at least agree that if it fails to be deleted this time, though this is football and not baseball, three strikes and you're out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sternlight (talk • contribs) 23:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No feet here; I've filled in my user page.Sternlight (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with it? The fact is that there are a suspiciously high number of single purpose accounts in all three of these AfD's, and there is nothing stopping anyone from nominating this again in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a rehash of what's gone before - and what's gone before very recently. Stop beating a dead horse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.217.164.27 (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC) — 75.217.164.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

His bio includes these
*2009 Rose Bowl Champion
*2008 PAC 10 Conference Champion
*2008 USC Service Team Offensive Player of the Year
*2008 USC Trojans Scholar Athlete
*2005 Great West Conference Champion
*2003 Wendy's High School Heisman (Nominee)
*National Football Foundation and College Hall of Fame High School Scholar Athlete (High school)
*2002 & 2003 Super Prep All-Farwest (High school)
*2003 All-CIF Division IV First Team (High school)
*All-CIF Academic First Team (High school)
*Los Angeles Times All-Ventura/North Coast First Team (High school)
*Los Angeles Daily News All-Area First Team (High school)
*All-Ventura County First Team (High school)
*Ventura County All-Academic Team (High school)
*All-Marmonte League First Team (High school)
*4 time consecutive Westlake High Scholar Athlete Award (High school)99Legend (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am questioning the validity of this discussion. 3 anonymous IPs that haven't done much of anything else (if anything at on) on Wikipedia have !voted to keep the article. These very well could be socks of 99Legend or Sternlight, assuming that those two aren't the same person anyway. Ndenison talk 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree there's like a hundred IP comments here which either means this discussion is at the top of google for Steve Gatena (I'm not sure if it is), or there's a lot of socking going on.--Giants27 TC 01:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an admin can in fact see where and when posts were made they would see that I only post from the same IP address. If any of my post are not signed by me and are in fact signed by my IP it is only because I may have been signed out when i re-opened my browser. I have gone back through my posts with my IP and signed them with this name. Note, I have not changed any of the content of my posts. Additionally, I cannot be held responsible nor do i take any responsibility for any posts other than my own. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and can be edited by anyone. 99Legend (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LA&p_theme=la&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0FE826A130BADA95&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
  2. ^ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/allthingstrojan/2008/08/ch-ch-changes.html
  3. ^ http://www.theaggie.org/article/1026
  4. ^ http://nfldraft.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=1164&script=content.asp&cid=203323&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=
  5. ^ http://nfldraft.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=1164&script=content.asp&cid=231849&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=
  6. ^ http://nfldraft.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=1164&script=content.asp&cid=238797&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=
  7. ^ http://nfldraft.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=1164&script=content.asp&cid=242340&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=
  8. ^ http://nfldraft.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=1164&script=content.asp&cid=250648&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=
  9. ^ http://nfldraft.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=1164&script=content.asp&cid=253087&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=
  10. ^ http://nfldraft.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=1164&script=content.asp&cid=253087&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Gatena_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=269459385"