Deletion of Mike Bianchi

Comment: 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 Sports Media Association|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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:SELFPUB||WP:GNG)

Comment: The argument that the sources for awards are not reliable because they are self-published (see ) ignores the meaning of "self", in this case. The National Sports Media Association|National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association is a major award and is evidence of notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:SELFSOURCE)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:RS)