Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Wagner (vintner)

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Wagner (vintner) (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)

Article appears to fail criteria for inclusion set forth in WP:BIO. Although the cited sources are reliable and independent, they are obituaries. Many non-notable people get obituaries; having such coverage doesn't meet the intent of the basic criteria for biographies. Also, Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Neither the article nor the cited obituaries describe anything particularly notable about this individual, as required by WP:BIO, specifically the criteria in WP:ANYBIO and possibly WP:CREATIVE. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is accompanied by multiple reliable and verifiable sources documenting notability, including a rather lengthy obituary from The New York Times, one of three or four published in the paper that day. The article was included on the Wikipedia front page through WP:DYK on July 9, were it received substantial coverage with nary a complaint. WP:NOTMEMORIAL has no relevance here and the same argument could be made about any article about any person who has died. Alansohn (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I stated in the opening, coverage by itself is not sufficient. Coverage within in Wikipedia, including DYK (which doesn't have notability as a criterion) doesn't confer notability either. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL has relevance if notability has not been established for the person. The article currently doesn't describe anything particularly notable. See "Additional criteria" in WP:BIO. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does count is coverage in reliable and verifiable sources, which this article has, making the subject satisfy WP:N. Any other comments made above are comments alone. Which sources are you deeming to fail WP:RS and WP:V? If there is some issue with the content, please clarify what the issue is or make corrections to improve the article and address your concerns. By your own standards, WP:NOTMEMORIAL has no relevance here as notability has been demonstrated. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article does not indicate that any part of WP:BIO Additional criteria (not basic criteria) have been met; see WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are confusing notability with remarkability and other superlatives. Wikipedia uses notability, Guinness World Records uses remarkability as their standard for inclusion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeep with an extra "e". Wikipedia says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." An obituary is the ne plus ultra of "significant coverage in reliable sources". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So anybody who gets a couple of obituaries automatically qualifies for inclusion, even if they meet no other criteria? Non-notable people get obituaries all the time, often two -- one in the town they were born and one in the community they lived. So what? My science fair project got covered in 3 reliable sources, and I can assure you I'm not notable. You don't get to pick and choose parts of WP:BIO convenient for you. What part of WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE is met here? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. That is the difference between a local and a national obituary. A local one isn't independent, it was written by the family. It involves a fee to the paper or to the funeral home, so it is self-published. Most papers don't even give full obits to locals anymore, they have the the standard 5 line funeral notices. I love the papers that still do local obits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"My science fair project got covered in 3 reliable sources". That would be excluded by being a single event, and it would have to contain a full biography of you, not just three lines with your name and school and a sentence about your project. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, a death is also a single event. I find it odd that a person would be deemed notable not before his death, but only afterward, by virtue of obituaries resulting from a single event. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is presumed notable on Wikipedia only once they have been noted, i.e., been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Assuming for the sake of argument that your characterization is correct, that Wagner was only noted upon or after his death, it's an obvious time to take stock of a life's accomplishments, and history is full of notable people whose accomplishments were only recognized posthumously. So the timing of those publications about him does nothing to rebut the presumption of notability (we can also assume that the NY Times decided he was worthy of an obituary profile well prior to his death, as those are prepared in anticipation, but that's not necessary to go into). Nor would it follow from the timing of those publications that he is notable only in association with his death (your "one event" as you have confusedly characterized it). When reliable sources decided to write about him has nothing to do with why they wrote about him in this case. The NY Times did not write an obituary about him just because he died, as would be the case with a routine family-submitted obituary, but rather because the paper thought he was a significant individual, worthy of being noted. You can choose to persist in failing to understand this, no matter how many times it's been explained to you, but it should be clear to you at this point that you are the one in error from the fact that everyone else has disagreed with your interpretation of applicable guidelines and from your application of them. postdlf (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep anyone with a full obituary in the New York Times automatically qualifies under the most basic of Wikipedia criteria, that of non-negligible coverage in reliable sources. As Richard Arthur Norton indicates above, newspaper obituaries of this nature might even be called a defining form of notability - you must be notable to even be considered for an obituary in a newspaper of record such as the New York Times. If Amatulić does not understand this then I suggest they do some more research into the matter before commenting further: in answer to their questions, WP:ANYBIO 1 & 2 apply and WP:CREATIVE 1, 2 & 3 are all met while 4 could be argued to have been achieved.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A non-notable fellow, who hasn't accomplished anything particularly notable in his lifetime, and who has received little or no coverage during his lifetime, is nevertheless an upstanding member of his community and highly regarded, gets a full obit in the NYT and this automatically confers notability? Sorry, I don't see it. The subject here is presented as a vintner. Okay. Has his wines received national acclaim, or just awards in the many thousands of local/regional competitions held every year? I can't tell. Did he preside over a notable winery? Apparently not. Has he made a significant contribution to the world of wine? The article doesn't indicate it. You also need to do better than simply assert WP:ANYBIO 1 and 2 apply. The article must do this, and I am not seeing where this occurs. However, I will bow to consensus, as it looks like this article is a keeper.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatulic (talk • contribs)
    • I personally don't give a damn about wine and I don't know what constitutes a significant contribution to the world of wine. But the New York Times viewed him as the founder of a company (one of the first in a region now known for its wines) "whose wines quickly earned state and national recognition." That's why they published a posthumous profile of him. Not because they just thought he was a nice guy. So regardless of whether you personally view him as someone worthy of note, the fact is he was noted, by multiple reliable sources in substantial coverage. Satisfying WP:GNG is sufficient regardless of whether "additional criteria" such as WP:ANYBIO are satisfied ("A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.") postdlf (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Postdlf, and further suggest that you take note of the way this Afd is going before submitting any more: learn more about the nature of reporter-written obituaries in newspapers of record before dismissing them so carelessly.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notability clearly established through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. My grandmother got an obituary when she passed away last year: it listed surviving family members, place of death, residence. It was published in the obituary section of the local newspaper as a matter of routine, submitted by family. Great lady though she was, she did not have a reporter-written profile published in the New York Times. It seems to me that the nom is equivocating the former with the latter just because both may be blandly called "obituaries." But the latter is clearly evidence of notability. postdlf (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep - on the "a NYT obit is ur- notability in the US" criteria. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I do not believe that having a New York Times obituary is an inherent guarantee of notability. However, it does help establish notability under WP:GNG. Furthermore, the subject received other obituaries (i.e. proper obituary articles, not just one-paragraph death notices naming his survivors and where the funeral will be held). Not only that, he was mentioned in connection with his vineyard business in articles dating back to 1981 or maybe earlier (see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). He seems to have been a person of some note at least within the New York winemaking business, so I would consider him sufficiently notable for an article. (However, I would recommend that the article be moved to Bill Wagner (vintner) instead; he seems to have been better known by his nickname Bill than as Stanley.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:BASIC easily. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and yet, until Metropolitan90's comment above, nobody has explained how -- least of all the article itself with the sources cited. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BASIC 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.". User:Alansohn explained this right off the bat. The nomination tried to tapdance around this by talking of "intent" but now you see that no-one is buying it so please withdraw to spare us further waste of time. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, moment of confusion there. I meant WP:ANYBIO. I don't contest that WP:BASIC isn't met. I have asserted, rather, that WP:BASIC aren't the only criteria that must be met for a bio article. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you asserting that because you have not read the sentence that immediately precedes WP:ANYBIO, because you don't understand it, or because you would like it to be otherwise? postdlf (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Clearly notable, several reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep – absurd nomination. Occuli (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• NB - the standard template for this process is biased pro-deletion if the article name is unusual in some way. Compare Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (685 ghits on 'news', some relevant) with Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (0 ghits on 'news'). Occuli (talk) 11:35, 27 July 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.