From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Also salting as the article has now been deleted six times. – Juliancolton |  Talk 03:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Steve Gatena

AfDs for this article:
Steve Gatena (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been through three four AFDs resulting in "Keep", "No Consensus", "Delete", and "Delete". No rationale has been given for its re-creation that I can find. The article in its current form appears to me to be substantially the same to the original article(s) that were deleted. The article was nominated for Speedy Deletion (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) and it was contested. There seems to be multiple issues with the article as it now stands, including potential promotion issues and general lack of notability. Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Correction: 1st AfD: the result was keep, no consensus to delete; 2nd AfD: no consensus (two weeks later); 3rd AfD was delete. The speedy delete was contested because that move was procedurally flawed, the article as it now stands substantially differs from the prior versions, just as the reviewer found. -- JumpLike23 (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Additional correction there have been four AFD discussions that I can find, not three. I was confused with the order. Here is what I have found so far:

If there are more discussions, please post them.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply


Keep this articles qualifies under the GNG standard, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." For example, Gatena is listed by Forbes magazine as a famous entrepreneur family, another publication lists him as an up and coming business person in LA. He has also received attention for founding companies and leading companies.

For football, he played for USC, which is a Division I team "the highest amateur level" for American football, for the Rose Bowl winning team and he is mentioned in other sources for his college career. Thus, he arguably qualifies the athlete standards. Moreover, while he was a FBS DI player pursuing a grad degree, he founded a company that ultimately got him recognized, see above.

Many previous opinions of users found him notable for college football career alone. The coverage he has received for the business career clearly establishes notability. -- JumpLike23 (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - it should be clearly noted that the last Afd (3rd) was in 2009 - when he was 23. He is now 31. While it was a delete back then (mostly based on his athlete career) - there were differing opinions. However I do believe the coverage since then (2009-2017) hasn't been enough after a quick source check. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Per the clarification above, the last AfD was actually in 2014. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not notable as a businessman or a football player. I am also concerned with the recreation of this article (twice) after two prior AfDs resulted in "Delete" conclusions. The sources cited in the article, and those I was able to find, do not satisfy the WP:GNG standard of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete back in 2008 Wikipedia had much lower inclusion criteria. Today with our more stringent inclusion criteria Gatena does not meet inclusion criteria. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and SALT Not notable College football player, (just playing for USC doesn't inherently make someone notable and I am unconvinced about Notability in his business career. UCO2009bluejay ( talk) 02:59, 26 April 2017 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Gatena_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1138795933"