Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Wille
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris Wille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article fails to address the requirements of WP:BIO. I find many articles in Google News about the Rainforest Alliance's Sustainable Agriculture Program with quotes from Wille speaking as chief on that program but these do not establish Wille himself as notable. Being a chief of a program or being "one of ten" named by a magazine does not of itself establish notability. Ash (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree Mr. Wille and the Rainforest Alliance are fused at the hip. But when; Reuters – OneWorld US – Washington Post – Telegraph – BBC News – CNNMoney – Providence Journal – Cincinnati Enquirer – USA TODAY – Fair Home – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel – Wall Street Journal – Cincinnati Business Courier – United Press International – Chicago Tribune – Mail & Guardian- New York Time, plus numerous other national and international news agencies, as provided here [1] look to Mr. Wille as the expert to quote on a specific topic, does not that make him the expert of that topic and qualify for inclusion under Professional? Thank you for your help in answering question. JAAGTalk 19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Unless you can find reliable sources in those sources you've linked from which to write a biography, which is what this article purports to be, then there are no reliable sources about the person. Woogee (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- II am sorry if I miss apply the term LOL here, I do not mean any type of insult or disparagement, but does not the requirement, before publishing in such agencies' as the New York Times – Washington Post and AP International require that the author of the piece be responsible for verifying the information from reliable sources and those verifications go through a n editorial review before publishing? And if that is the case, you are asking me to verify that the sources from the New York Times – Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have gone through such a process? I am sorry I can not, but is this really required at English Wikipedia? JAAGTalk 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidelines that you quoted yourself (and as the nomination makes clear and Woogee went on to re-state) states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Nobody has suggested that these sources are not reliable sources, only that the articles do not have Wille as the subject. If you find some sources that do have Wille as the subject, then there is a potential rationale for notability. As for laughing at another person's comments in an AfD discussion, it seems hard not to consider it a direct insult even when prefixed by saying it is not.—Ash (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- II am sorry if I miss apply the term LOL here, I do not mean any type of insult or disparagement, but does not the requirement, before publishing in such agencies' as the New York Times – Washington Post and AP International require that the author of the piece be responsible for verifying the information from reliable sources and those verifications go through a n editorial review before publishing? And if that is the case, you are asking me to verify that the sources from the New York Times – Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have gone through such a process? I am sorry I can not, but is this really required at English Wikipedia? JAAGTalk 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Unless you can find reliable sources in those sources you've linked from which to write a biography, which is what this article purports to be, then there are no reliable sources about the person. Woogee (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, I mis-read the concerns of the editor thinking that he wanted me to verify that the article writers of the New York Times and Washington Post verified that what the individual, in this case Mr. Willie, said was a person in position to make such statements, and as such had the authority to make those statements. Regarding the notability, my line of thought was that is these news sources use Mr. Willie as the expert to quote on the subject matter, does not that qualify him for inclusion under Professional. Again, as I said in my comment, this is only a question. So I can better understand how this Wiki works. Sorry for any mis-understandings. JAAGTalk 02:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will assume good faith on your part, and will respond with, what reliable sources have information about Mr. Wille's biographical data, other than that he's a spokesperson for the program? If reliable sources only say he's a spokesperson, that's not enough to build a biography from. Woogee (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per not being the subject of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2010 (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.