Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Bartman

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 CUBS WIN! CUBS WIN! CUBS WIN! Speedy keep; non-admin closure. Shalom ^Hello 06:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Bartman

Please delete, as with Matt Murphy (baseball fan), attempting to catch a baseball does not make one notable. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Murphy (baseball fan). Burntsauce 16:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Safe at first. This isn't the same thing. Bartman may have affected the outcome of a crucial playoff game. His action received widespread notice. Twenty years from now, people will still recognize his name; nobody will remember Murphy. Clarityfiend 17:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  You need to go read WP:COATRACK. The story is interesting, but that does not make this person notable. Burntsauce 17:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment See WP:COATRACK#What is not a coatrack. Clarityfiend 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (or alternatively redirect to 2003 National League Championship Series) It does need to be better sourced, but there are sources out there. I believe he was featured on ESPN's The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame... (it was actually the pilot of the series) so there is outside coverage. I think the popular culture section needs to be trimmed or cut but that's no reason to delete. Phydend 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If you are going to say that this one event is not notable, considering its large notoriety in the world at large, then you would be hard pressed to say that other singular events are notable. Those events still have Wiki articles and thus, this one should too.Silver seren 17:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Even though this subject is notable, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid defense for keeping an article. Realkyhick 18:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

True, sorry. Under WP:Notability, it is notable if it has significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. BBC News and ESPN seem like reliable sources. Furthering that, I have a few more that can be added...

ESPN: Identity of "Cubs Fan"

USA Today: Fan Who Deflected Ball

Fox News: Statement from Bartman

The Seattle Times: Tickets For Bartman

I hope these help. Silver seren 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Well, this is different. He significantly affects the outcome of a game. People will continue to recognize him. And if he receives widespread attention, he is notable. Chris! _{my talk} 18:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as much as Bartman would love to see this deleted! It's one thing to catch the baseball that makes history; another thing entirely to make history by catching a baseball. Sidatio 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The article, not the subject. (Can you tell I'm a Cubs fan?) Seriously, the subject is clearly notable, his name continues to be used in many sports references, his action marked (wrongly or not) a turning point in a playoff series. His name is instantly recognizable by any contemporary baseball fan. Realkyhick 18:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep one of the most despised sports fans on earth. ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and several other news organizations regularly bring his name up. That makes him notable.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep, clearly notable, mentioned in the Wall Street Journal and commented on (personally, not just the incident) by people like Letterman and Jeb Bush. That constitutes wide coverage in mainstream press. Jdcooper 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, easily passes WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Bartman, who became the most hated man in the world among fans of a certain baseball team, actually may have interfered with the conduct of the game. This is very different from Murphy who merely had a baseball fall into his possession. There were many articles in independent and reliable publications which talked about Bartman for his action. Seems like a "pointy" nomination.Edison 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Bartman is a much more notable subject than Murphy. Bartman is still talked about today for something almost four years ago. Also what he did affected the game and may have been a turning point. He is clearly notable. Matt Murphy is not notable, he just happened to catch a notable ballFrank Anchor 20:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This one's pretty much out of the park by now - should we close it out? Sidatio 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Comparing Bartman to Matt Murphy is apples and oranges. Murphy's catch didn't change anything but his life.--Sethacus 21:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Possibly ruined the outcome of the WS, hence keeping a curse still alive. Was covered by plenty of news sources, and is hated by some of Chicago. Very notable. I have a feeling that this was nominated just beacause of Matt Murphy. James Luftan ^contribs 21:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Apples and oranges. Bartman changed an important game and series. Murphy changed nothing.--Fizbin 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ok I see that everyone voted keep here, while I said in Mike Murphy afd that his article too must go as like Murphy he only catch a historic ball, nothing more. In this case contributing to the extension of the Cubs curse of winless-seasons (not winning the WS I mean). I will not gonna cast really a vote here since it will not make a major difference, I would have personnally have merged it to any Cubs and MLB article related to the event or renamed it to the Bartman incident or any similar type articles and make Bartman a redirect. Other then that, he's not really that notable for his individual article--JForget 23:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep while I'm not sure that simply catching a ball would be article-worthy, this particular act (probably) changed the outcome of a crucial game, and is likely to be remembered, discussed, and written about for decades. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep... even though the nominator did say "Please". Poor Steve Bartman, destined to be part of Chicago Cubs' lore. As with Fred Merkel, Steve Bartman will be remembered a century from now. Only a sports fan would understand. Mandsford 23:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can buy a WP:BLP1E argument for merging this into an appropriate Chicago Cubs season article (when created), or that year's NLCS article (can't remember off hand), but Bartman is someone who will be remembered for a very, very long time for what happened. The topic is notable. Resolute 02:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think there's plenty of historic notability for this fan to get past WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 04:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• "Move to dismiss and close, your honor." I think we've established a very clear consensus here. Realkyhick 05:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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.