Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Reifert

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 no consensus. LFaraone 16:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Scott Reifert

Scott Reifert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

per failing WP:GNG, I'll concede he is VP of the White Sox, one of several, but not notability beyond that or independent coverage. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [1].  Unscintillating (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)]

• Keep - Charles Manson really isn't notable outside of being a murderer. It is like saying Harry Caray is not notable as all he did was announce baseball games. People do not have to hold more than one position to be notable, they need WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. There are five pages of articles in the Chicago Tribune here as well as a few here on ESPN.com. Want books? He is mentioned in a few here. USA Today? Of course, here they are. Many of these articles are passing mentions, but more than enough to aggregate into significant coverage and more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". The sources provided all seem to verify who he is, a spokesperson for the White Sox organization, but do not discuss him in the sort of detail that would lend to notability. I don't feel that they aggregate to meet GNG. The above editor's comparisons to Harry Caray and Charles Manson are beyond absurd. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I generally will support any Chicago personality based on WP:GNG who has a Chicago Tribune archive.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's a sufficient test of notability. It means he's been mentioned a bunch, sure, but none of them are in sufficient depth. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete The article as it stands has no sources to establish notability and the sources listed here, including the Chicago Tribune pieces listed by TonyTheTiger are minor pieces that mostly quote him in his role as PR guy with the White Sox... his role was to issue press releases. None of these articles cover him in any significant detail and his role with the team was not significant enough to satisfy baseball notability guidelines or GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Nominator is also voting inside nominations -- removed. Crtew (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm. That's what tacos get for being unrepentant, I guess. I haven't seen his/her other AfDs, but this one I still think is just. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete I don't see him how he meets WP:BIO, yes he was interviewed for White Sox related manners and some passing mentions but I don't see the multiple reliable sources independent of the subject that covers the subject in detail required here. Nominator blocked as sock has no effect on this AFD. Secret ^account 01:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep I've been able to access full-text of various newspaper sources. Here's what has turned up:

• This newsblog entry, though not the best quality source, provides some coverage regarding how Reifert and the media were not quite getting along.
• Chicago Sun-Times article evidences that Reifert maintained the official blog for the White Sox, and his reputation as a social media specialist is supported by details in this book and in this one too.
• Reifert is quoted several times in this article regarding how press seats at U.S. Cellular Field might be moved.

I think there's enough here for GNG per his frequent designation as a spokesperson and that there is reasonable amount of coverage of him as an early adopter an specialist in social media communications for the White Sox. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete These AfDs are getting dumber and dumber. First, bullpen catchers were deemed to be notable, and now some people believe being a team spokesman is notable. Where's the substantial coverage of Reifert required by Wiki notability guidelines? There doesn't appear to be any. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2013 (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.