Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Bartman (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Consensus is that the amount of persistent coverage the subject has received (for reasons that your humble European servant probably won't ever understand) exceeds the level of coverage dedicated to the typical WP:BLP1E subject. There are no obvious WP:BLP problems that would mandate deletion. There are also no indications that the subject himself has requested the deletion of the article about him. Sandstein 16:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bartman[edit]

As much as people would like to keep beating this guy up, he fails WP:N by way of WP:BLP1E. The only thing this non-notable private citizen ever did that can even be considered vaguely notable was try to catch a ball. The aftermath of abuse that people heaped on him afterwards, making him out to be a scapegoat for the Cubs basically losing the game, does not make the subject notable beyond that One Event. Article is a BLP nightmare as well, and is impossible to conform to WP:NPOV. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ [see below] any appropriate information into the Cubs history, where it probably already is anyway. I agree that continually beating up on this guy, who did nothing wrong, is wrong and might get us into legal trouble someday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Michael Wilbon who even in 2008 advocates in front of millions of viewers the "Bartman Beatdown" be performed? Bartman juuuust might start there before suing an encyclopedia where he has no legal argument anyway. Paranoia isn't helpful. --Rividian (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 140 recent Google news hits for "Steve Bartman" + Cubs [1]. When someone is still getting that many media mentions five years after the incident that made him famous, I think it's fair to ~~ignore WP:BLP1E~~ keep this information. I certainly do agree that Bartman got a bum rap, but he is still a major part of American baseball folklore, and we should include him in Wikipedia. Later tonight, I'll take a stab at cleaning up the article, and I'll add more quotes from people who spoke in his defense. (There are plenty of quotes like that, which should alleviate concerns about POV. And if we stick to the indisputable facts, we don't need to worry about legal trouble.) Zagalejo^^^ 01:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on the article, but I'm not finished yet. I don't really see anything libelous, but the article could still use some better sourcing, so I'll try to get going on that tomorrow. Zagalejo^^^ 06:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was unaware of the incident and hearing a reference to it, looked it up and found it on Wiki, one of my most prefered sources of information on the internet, and particularly for information about baseball. This was a famous incidence with considerable signifigance, and should not be ignored as if it never happened. The article as I read it on 7/8/2008 seems fair and balanced. It should not be merged as Mr. Bartman is notorious in his own right, and the incident took on a significant life of it's own. The indicent is not just incidental to some other topic, whether the reaction of the majority public was fair or not. TD —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomBrooklyn (talk • contribs) 04:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a notorious fan that changed the outcome for a very important game. POV issues can be resolved with a clean up.--t b c ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From reading the article and having not ever heard about the incident before, it came across to me he may or may not have changed the outcome of the game--indication that the article is fair and balanced--which is all the more reason to keep it, whether Bartman changed the outcome or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomBrooklyn (talk • contribs) 04:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It depends on who you're talking to. ;) Anyhow, changing the result of the game is generally the reason why so many fans hate him and why he's so famous, regardless if the claim true or not.--t b c ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retitle as Steve Bartman incident or similar. It doesn't attempt to be a biography, nor do I find it "beating up" on him other than relaying reports of abuse (mainly in the media). It's somewhat unprecedented in MLB history and sparked a legal row among other things. If it must be merged, then 2003_Chicago_Cubs_season#Game_6 is the appropriate target, in which case the sentence there is inadequate; it should have its own paragraph. --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at current title - this guy is clearly notable. He is often referenced whenever any non-player interferes with a ball in play. For instance, during the 2007 Holiday Bowl, when an assistant coach stepped onto the field of play. Renaming the article to "Steve Bartman incident" or similar would be a pointless exercise in political correctness. People will be more likely to look for information on "Steve Bartman" than any other title and we should keep the information at the most straight-forward location. Johntex\^talk 01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why re-directs exist. Black ngold29 02:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it isn't. Redirects exist for a variety of reasons, including alternate spellings, or to redirect a second choice title (E.g. United States of America) to a more common title (E.g. United States). You can certainly create Steve Bartman incident and redirect it to Steve Bartman. Johntex\^talk 02:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or rename he is a clear-cut version of WP:BLP1E. The incident is notable, though it should be titled "Steve Bartman incident" or included on the Cubs season page for 2003. He as a person though, is not worthy of his own article. Black ngold29 01:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly Rename per above. - Raj Krishnamurthy (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't agree with the notability claim as the incident, and, soon afterwards, the person, became part of public discourse and which was documented in multiple reliable sources (some of which were cited in the article). Also, the BLP issue seems like engaging in a hypothetical, as the article in its current state does not raise any concerns to my eyes. - Masonpatriot (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2003 Chicago Cubs season. The incident is notable. Bartman is just a name attached to it. Doesn't belong as a separate biography. Reso lute 02:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is a lot of biographical information on Bartman that isn't included in the article.~~ When all is said and done, there will be too much to merge. Zagalejo^^^ 03:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll take that back, somewhat. There's not as much biographical information about him as I thought there was. But there's still enough information about the event as a whole to make a merge unnecessary. All we'd have to do is change the title. Zagalejo^^^ 05:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Resolute. This definitely falls under WP:BLP1E. The information about the interference belongs in the target article; the biographical information doesn't belong at all, as Bartman is NN beyond this incident. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the biographical information belong at all? Pretty much all of it is very positive, talking about how he was a good student and a good Little League coach. It will provide a more well-rounded view of the guy. See [2], for example. Zagalejo^^^ 04:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes you could get technical on the one event thing, but that would simply be renaming the article, not deleting it. The fact is that this information deserves to be somewhere --T-rex 04:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the person is famous enough for Wikipedia. Expand the Biography section if references are available. Current title is the best one for the article. U$er (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reason the autobiographical stuff shouldn't be merged is because it's of absolutely no consequence to anything. Bartman tried to catch a foul ball. The fact that the media and bitter sports fans keep using his name as a "goat" doesn't make him notable. I can't see how this could be any more clearly a BLP1E issue. Most of my BLP concerns in this article have to do with the biographical information. For example, giving his hometown. All this does is tell people where he lives so they can continue to send him hate mail! WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid reason to keep this as an article by itself and many of the keeps above don't seem to indicate why this person is notable outside of the One Event. Is the event notable? Sure, I can see that. But Bartman himself is just some guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact that he's a little league coach, was a good student, likes to drink lattes in the morning, etc. isn't notable. I could easily see the relevant information about the EVENT being merged to the relevant Cubs article. But Bartman himself is thoroughly non-notable outside of his One Event. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one's given an "I like it" argument, so don't pull that out. He is notable for one event, I'll give you that, but there's a lot to say about that one event. It has a firmly established place in baseball culture, especially Cubs culture. You can rename the page Steve Bartman incident or something like that, but there is more than enough information to justify an independent article.
And people are going to need more than his hometown to send hatemail. It's not like we're not going to list his address and phone number. Zagalejo^^^ 05:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous argument by Nobody of Consequence. This article has nothing to do with sending the subject hate mail. People will continue to be mad at him, or feel sorry for him, or whatever, irregardless of whether his name is at the top of his own article or embedded into an article by a different name. Unless you favor censoring his name as well? Even then, Wikipedia is not the only media source in the world - deleting Bartman's article would not restore his reputation. U$er (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it ridiculous? Yes, focus on one comment I made while ignoring everything else I've said. And yes, naming his hometown does create privacy concerns. Anyone with half a brain can now go look the guy up and stalk him. He's not a celebrity, he's just some regular joe. And, may I add, has anyone actually READ BLP1E? Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person. So there's another problem, WP:UNDUE. A redirect or a merge would be the best course of action. One event, no matter how much coverage it received by ESPN playing videos of it doesn't warrant a separate article. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is ridiculous becuase you think you are talking about a low-profile individual. There is nothing low-profile about him. He is famous/infamous, and your wishful thinking doesn't change that. As for BLP1E, our policies are not created in a vacuum, they are meant to be a written manifestation of how we are actually working. If the policies are out of whack with an article that has already been validated by being kept in a nearly unanimous AFD (as this article has) then you are either reading the policy incorecctly, or else the wording of the policy needs be changed. U$er (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic here is "creative", to say the least... perhaps backwards and convoluted are better terms. Articles don't dictate policy, policy dictates articles. There's no wishful thinking on my part: what high-profile events has this "regular joe" Bartman participated in since that one event? All of his coverage has nothing to do with anything he's done since then, rather it has to do with the media latching onto 2 seconds they see as scandalworthy and Cubs fans looking for another scapegoat as to why they haven't won a Series in 100 years. Give me a break. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number one way policies get created is "Documenting actual good practices and seeking consensus that the documentation truly reflects them." U$er (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why couldn't we just retitle the article to make it about the incident? Zagalejo^^^ 18:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not unalterably opposed to that, but the article needs to be pared down significantly and most of the biographical information about Bartman himself needs to be deleted if that's the path we take. Otherwise, it's just a Bartman biography with a different title. For example, where he lives doesn't matter in an article focusing on the Bartman incident. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article never says where he currently lives; it just says where he grew up. But I do think some biographical information is beneficial, since it helps paint him as a kind, productive person, rather than some random schlub. Zagalejo^^^ 22:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't see how this could be any more clearly a BLP1E issue". I agree. "Cover the event, not the person". Seems like the discussion shouldn't be about deletion, but merge vs. renaming. I'm very much in favor of the latter, since there's too much coverage of the event itself to have it merged to the Cubs article. dfg (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename - Although living in Chicago exposes me to more coverage of this than usual, the incident's been covered by local, national, and international reputable, third-party sources, and the article reflects that. But the article should be renamed (per Dhartung) because there is a miniscule amount of biographical info in the article and it's what he did that's notable, not the man. Whether he's at fault for anything is totally irrelevant to the AfD discussion. dfg (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect relevant information about the incident into 2003 Chicago Cubs season#Game 6. This poor guy is a Cubs footnote, and is not notable outside of this incident. -- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 06:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not "just a footnote". He's mentioned on, like, ten pages of this book. He's more well-known than 99% of Cubs players. Zagalejo^^^ 18:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable for a single event, so merge to an article about that event instead as per policy. JBsupreme (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is part of baseball lore. Every time the Chicago Cubs go into the playoffs, ESPN will be playing video of his blunder. He's going to be notable until the Cubs win the World Series, and he's very notable here.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey! We don't need no stinkin' Marlins here! :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you casting aspersions that I might be supporting Keeping of this article because the Marlins won the game and subsequently the World Series. How dare you. I'm insulted. I'm filing an AN/I right now. Probably an RfC too. I'm so famous with ArbCom right now, maybe I'll do that too. GO MARLINS. Oops. I digress. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't aware that being part of Baseball lore was a reason to be included in WP. Diane Roles named Steely McBeam, so she's a part of NFL lore right? So where's her article? Black ngold29 18:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and here's why: Yes, he's notable. Yes, he's a part of baseball lore. Yes, he's gotten lots of news and coverage. But the trump card is this: He's a living person, and the articles must confide to the rules about living people. I have a friend who worked with him in Chicago--he has had to move multiple times, has received many, many death threats, and has to indure countless acts of public ridicule and scorn. Although it is a noteworthy subject, I think in this case it is something Wikipedia should avoid.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point re: the BLP issues. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but based on this logic, shall we not delete the article on Bill Clinton? Bill Gates?? Bill Russell (baseball)??? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at that--none have had continuing death threats like our poor Steve has, none have had to sell their homes, none have trouble getting jobs, and Bill Clinton has the Secret Service to protect him. They're not ordinary people. Our subject here is an ordinary person with ordinary means and is in a truly extraordinary circumstance because he happened to be sitting in a chair at a game and grabbed a ball.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paulmcdonald said "...none have had continuing death threats like our poor Steve has..." - of course Bill Clinton has received death threats. Many famous people have received death threats, that is absolutely no reason to delete their articles. Johntex\^talk 17:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By saying "Strong delete", you are suggesting that you wouldn't support a retitling, or even a merge. Is that correct? Look, I feel sorry for the guy, but we have to set some boundaries for these sympathy deletions. Bartman's name is indelibly etched into the minds of baseball fans and Chicagoans. The damage is already done; we can't pretend that he never existed.
I'm in the process of adding references to the article. Afterwards, we can consider protecting it, to prevent vandalism. But to wipe out his name entirely would be the most extreme application of BLP I've ever seen. Zagalejo^^^ 18:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm I'd be okay with mentioning the incident in the world series or game article, but without his name. It did happen, and the incident is notable. But to say the "damage is already done" shows an ignorance of the continued damage that this poor guy encounters still today. Did you miss the part about "multiple death threats" ? Wikipedia is not a tabloid.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does the Wikipedia article have to do with death threats? It's not like we give his address or phone number. Zagalejo^^^ 18:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not like we give his address or phone number" ??? I'd say you don't know what the guy goes through just trying to buy groceries. Wikipedia has always chosen to behave responsibly. That statement reflects a lack of responsibility. This is a topic from which Wikipedia should just walk away.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to paint me as this ogre, but I'm still not convinced how a Wikipedia article is going to affect Bartman's life. Bartman's name is always going to come up in Google searches in connection to this incident. He entered the public consciousness, and has stayed there for five years. It's better that the first Google hit be a neutral, well-researched article than some mean-spirited fan site. Zagalejo^^^ 22:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, this is a poor line of reasoning. Because people do bad things or make mistakes and receive scorn and worse for them does not mean they shouldn't be covered by the encyclopedia. Furthermore, Wikipedia has not always chosen to behave responsibly (think Essjay) and the Bartman incident is not purely tabloid material. The article has references to the BBC, ESPN, and several major Chicago newspapers. dfg (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a part of baseball lore. All U.S. baseball fans know who he is. Kingturtle (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "All" U.S. baseball fans?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: This isn't a biographic article. The article is mostly about the incident and the name should reflect that. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People who are arguing for dis-inclusion based on BLP1E should think about Thích Quảng Đức. In contrast to that article, here we have scant biographical info on Bartman, nor should we. I see more editors arguing in favor of a rename to cover the event and not the man himself. Edit: Don't we circumvent concerns about violations of WP:BLP if the article is renamed to the event and therefore is no longer a biography article? Seems like the simplest solution. dfg (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not Valid Comparison Thích Quảng Đức intentionally set himself on fire for the world to see, to protest, and he's dead. Bartman caught a baseball and is still alive.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Straw Man The comparison is not in what they did, but that both are notable for a single event. Please don't be obtuse. dfg (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Me? Obtuse? I'm not the one trying to cheat Wikipedia:BLP by re-naming the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm curious about your reasoning. If the article is renamed and irrelevant biographical material is removed, how is that cheating BLP? My understanding of your argument so far is that you feel sorry for the guy and therefore even his name should not appear in Wikipedia. Please correct me if I'm wrong. dfg (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ahhh... If you rename the article and edit the content of the article by removing his name, I'm fine with it. If you just change the article name and leave his name in the article, that would leave me in concern.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I would challenge anyone to try that without it looking completely ridiculous. [[[name redacted] incident]] dfg (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, some mention of the event itself, which I don't argue the notability of, should appear. I'm just not entirely convinced it deserves its own article: I think a merge would be best. Retitling the existing article and paring out the non-notable and irrelevant biographical information about Bartman may work okay too. For a situation that has some similarities to the Bartman situation, see Brian Peppers. While the notability of the meme surrounding him could be established by a number of reliable sources, the article was deleted because he wasn't particularly notable except for the fact that he looks unusual and had his photo posted online by the police. He never did anything before and has never done anything since, yet people still talk about him. Having an article about him was extremely problematic and caused all kinds of pain for the subject and his family. On that note, Bartman is reviled by Cubs fans and as mentioned up above, will probably be hated until the Cubs finally win the Series. We do him a disservice by helping perpetuate this. Any article or section of an article about the event should discuss the event only, and not elements of Bartman's life itself. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your last statement. I do disagree about the comparison to Peppers, though, because as I understand it, he's a meme that continues to be discussed today among private individuals and, uh, interent denizens, whereas Bartman continues to be discussed today by reliable sources. A Google news search confirms (for what that's worth) this. dfg (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I knew someone was going to bring up Peppers, but it's not a valid comparison. There are no relevant Google News hits for Brian Peppers, but there are several thousand for Bartman, including 146 recent mentions. Zagalejo^^^ 22:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Changed the course of a National League Championship Series. From that standpoint he is clearly notable enough for an article, and there is enough biographical information to satisfy me. If the page's information is true, why are we getting worked up about the possibilty of a libel suit? Moving this without mentioning his name won't do anything to shield him because baseball fans already know his name. Improve the referencing, but do not delete this. Giants2008 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if you want a valid comparison article, take a look at Jeffrey Maier. He's only notable for one event, so why is he not included in this discussion? Giants2008 (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bartman didn't change the course of anything. THIS is exactly why we should not have a biographical article on Bartman, because people continue to insist that he "cost the Cubs", and an article about him that basically insinuates that he did perpetuates this complete and utter bullshit. A single out does not make a series and everyone conveniently forgets that the Cubs had to lose the next game, not to mention play like bums the rest of that game, to get beaten. When I played football, my coach called people who blamed their losing on the Steve Bartman's of the world "crybabies". The Marlins beat the Cubs cleanly, and would have beaten them whether Bartman tried to catch a foul ball or not. I'm pretty sure Alou himself was even quoted as saying he wouldn't have made the play anyway. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Bartman didn't deserve the abuse he got. But regardless of whether he changed the course of the series, he is still an iconic figure in baseball lore. Zagalejo^^^ 00:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NoC, whether or not Bartman did or didn't change the course of anything is completely irrelevant to whether his name (not biography) belongs in Wikipedia. The event occurred, it was documented by reliable sources, therefore it's encyclopedic. People arguing that even his name should be redacted from WP are not putting forth any solid arguments. dfg (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable for a single event only in the most stubbornly literal interpretation of the clause which would also preclude people like Lee Harvey Oswald. Bartman's one event has spawned massive discussion and is basically a part of baseball folklore now. He's more important to baseball than a lot of people who've actually played a few MLB games. If someone wants to tastefully migrate this article to being more about the "bartman curse", incident, or what have you, and retitle it, fine. But that doesn't require AFD. --Rividian (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except Lee Harvey Oswald is dead, so the policies of biographies of living people wouldn't apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I see our job as covering notable topics more than being nice to people... but fine, Zacarias Moussaoui and probably hundreds of other people are notable for just one event, and still alive. --Rividian (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bartman s WP:N as a part of baseball history. He had an important 15 minutes of fame for which he is encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagalejo and Dhartung and perhaps rename to "Steve Bartman incident." Just this last week I asked an acquaintance, "What is the name of that guy who is the most hated man to Chicago baseball fans" and he instantly named this person. That is a high degree of fame, and there are many reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage of that instant when he reached for a baseball and perhaps changed history. Google news search shows 1400 results for "steve bartman" and baseball [3]. The coverage is international, and has continued over the years since the incident; see Sporting News 2007 [4] which called him "perhaps the most despised man on the planet." For international coverage, see The Independent, London [5] and BBC News [6] which says the Cubs hopes of winning their first World Series since 1908 receded when he made a grab for the ball. He certainly did not do anything beyond what any other fan might have done: attempt to catch the ball, but the Cubs' 3-0 lead turned to an 8-3 loss afterward. Before his action, the Cubs were five outs from going to the World Series for the first time since ~~1908~~ 1945. The article should note he is a Cubs fan and is a decent and likeable person, per the Washington Post[7]. Edison (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request Just please follow W:BLP. That's all I ask.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP says for "we should generally avoid having an article on them" and "a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted" for one-event people. Generally and unlikely don't mean "never". Bartman is a very rare case, an exception. So we can follow BLP and still not delete this article. Besides being a part of folklore, he's still in the news quite a bit 4 years later [8], 138 mentions in the past month. He's a pretty clear case where there's an exception to the "one event" rule, which BLP allows for. --Rividian (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Steve Bartman incident" or some such, if you must keep a separate article. It's the incident that's notable by wiki standards, not the guy. The guy's name would redirect to the incident. Your precedent for this is the long debate over "Eve Carson" vs. Murder of Eve Carson. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP Are you kidding me? He's natable, and Wiki needs this article. Tiptopper (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP Ridiculous to be even having a discussion about this subject. Of course he's notable. To not have a Steve Bartman article in Wikipedia would raise questions about its own relevance.MrShamrock (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These kinds of arguments do not trump policy. Please make a polocy-based argument for keeping. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No policy says that this must be deleted. As said above, BLP1E leaves room for exceptions. By the way, did you ever see the second question I left on your talk page? Zagalejo^^^ 08:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable, and I find the BLP arguments unpersuasive. I'm neutral on a possible move to another title. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:57, 14 July 2008 (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.