The result was delete. Also salting as the article has now been deleted six times. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The result was delete. Also salting as the article has now been deleted six times. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)