Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Bianchi


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  yhW oS  07:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Mike Bianchi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article does not assert notability and the refs provided barely qualify as superficial. Googling suggests that he's an unremarkable sports journalist with no particular notoriety or claim to fame. Most Google hits are for stuff he's written. I did find this small bio and although it's better than the sources we have it's still nothing to base an article on. Matt Deres (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The article is quite short and could use some expansion and references, but Bianchi is notable enough for an entry. He has been a prominent Florida sports journalist / commentator / whiner (I'm not much of a fan, not that that's relevant) for years in print, radio, and TV, and he's won several state and national awards for sports journalism. Mike clearly meets the notability requirements, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I'm with Zeng8r. Bianchi is prominent enough to have an article. Lepricavark (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether he's prominent or not is irrelevant. He needs to be notable in the Wikipedia sense and that means he needs to have "significant coverage" in reliable third-party sources. The current article doesn't have any of that and I couldn't find anything when I looked. If you can find some, great, toss them in there and I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. Matt Deres (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * comment To support my earlier point above, a quick search turned up the fact that Bianchi was named an "Alumnus of Distinction" by the University of Florida's College of Journalism and Communications in 2013. This page on the UF CJC's website lists some of his awards and accomplishments.. Sports journalists don't fit neatly into any of Wikipedia's notability categories - by the nature of their jobs, they do much more writing (and in Bianchi's case, talking on TV and radio as well) about athletes and teams than they'll ever be written or talked about themselves. But when someone has successfully worked in many different facets of the sports reporting / commentating industry for many years and has received multiple recognitions from his peers, it seems to me that he's notable enough for an article. (And again, I'm not much of a fan, just giving credit where credit is due.) Zeng8r (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being named an "alumnus of distinction" by his own alma mater is not, in and of itself, a claim of notability that would get a person into an encyclopedia — and while winning an award from the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association might be, it would still have to be referenced to reliable source coverage about him and not just to the NSSA's own self-published website. There are lots of people who sound notable in theory, but simply don't actually have the depth of RS coverage needed to actually clear our inclusion rules — and while journalists do tend to fall in that camp given that their job is to report the story while generally trying not to be the story, that fact does not mean that we can exempt journalists from having to pass WP:GNG on the depth of sourcing. Because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we can't guarantee that every "anybody" who edits the article is actually doing so responsibly or correctly — our articles are quite regularly overwritten with promotional PR puffery and/or dirtwashed with unsourced criticism or "controversy", and reliable sourcing is the only defense that we have against inappropriate edits. So we can't exempt somebody from having to be the subject of enough media coverage to clear GNG — unfortunate though it may be, there are some topics for whom the necessary depth of sourcing just isn't there, so we just can't actually keep an article regardless of how notable they sound like they should be. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * comment I've been an active Wikipedian for almost a decade, so I know the notability guidelines and the reasons behind them pretty well, thanks. There probably be should be a specialized list of notability criteria for members of the media, but there isn't, so Notability (media) is a good resource. Yes, it's primarily concerned with the notability of broadcast outlets, but it's also instructive when considering broadcast personalities, especially this section:

"...the media does not often report on itself. It is not often that one media outlet will give neutral attention to another, as this could be seen as 'advertising for the competition.' Also, when searching for sources on media outlets, the results are often pages produced by the outlet, making it difficult to find significant coverage in multiple sources. As media outlets are themselves a significant proportion of our sources for other content, however, it serves an important purpose for Wikipedia to provide neutral and verifiable information about those sources so that readers are able to evaluate their reliability and scope. Accordingly, the notability standards for media organizations and content are designed to be as inclusive, not restrictive, as possible within the bounds of verifiability in reliable sources."


 * Bianchi is a well-known, award winning journalist who has worked in three different broadcast mediums for almost 20 years. (Four, if you count online commentary.) Right there, he meets the first criteria for inclusion for a periodical, which, I would argue, confers notability on the person who won the award. As to your other points, the article is far too short, but it isn't puffery, and I don't see any indication that a PR person or Bianchi himself wrote it to make him look good. (And now that it's on my watchlist, it will never turn into a PR piece.) It just needs expansion and the inclusion of more facts besides a basic list of where he's worked and what awards he's won. And there are some good sources of information. It's inaccurate to call the UF and NSSA award pages "self-published" - they're independent institutions, independent of Bianchi and each other. Looking at the big picture and keeping WP:NOTPAPER in mind, Bianchi meets the notability standards. Zeng8r (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The argument that the sources for awards are not reliable because they are self-published (see WP:SELFSOURCE) ignores the meaning of "self", in this case. The National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association is a major award and is evidence of notability. Jacona (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2017 (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.