Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Schlanger

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 delete. Consensus was that being on televison was insufficient proof of notabilty absent coverage from reliable sources. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Schlanger[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't even attempt to demonstrate any notability beyond the fact that he has a job that puts him on TV sometimes. Every GNews return I looked at just mentioned his name as a reporter. I didn't see anything that was significant coverage of him as a person. Would have to say he fails WP:CREATIVE. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schlanger has been a play-by-play announcer for a Major League Baseball and National Football League team. I would say those qualifications are notable. Fbdave (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? That is having a job. Where is the significant coverage by reliable third party sources? I'm sure he is a great guy, but just having a job that requires you to appear on TV or radio once doesn't make you notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Major League Baseball announcers and Category:National Football League announcers have their own categories. They are not *just* jobs. Fbdave (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a category for people born in February. Does that mean everyone born in February is notable? Is everyone who was ever a soldier notable because there is a category for soldiers? It IS just a job until he becomes notable in his own right. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing any significant coverage of this individual in reliable, independent sources. I find a bunch of brief mentions in stories about other topics, but nothing that is primarily about him. —SW— ^talk 17:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. What is needed is some in-depth coverage of the subject and his work. Simply reporting what he does is well below the notability bar. Bridgeplayer (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:RECENTISM and WP:CREATIVE. No assertion of notability. Having a high-profile job doesn't impress as a keep assertion. Common practice is that each of those other subject announcers in the categories described met the notability standard on their own, so WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS continues to be a poor argument. BusterD (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2011 (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.