Talk:Herbert Diess
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Image was uploaded to commons in 2013 by RudolfSimon. Copied to thetruthaboutcars.com without crediting source in 2016, so... --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Notability has been established
[edit]Can Walter Görlitz or whomever thinks there is a notability problem here please explain what it is? There are sources cited here that demonstrate sustained coverage in multiple independent sources. Without any explanation, I'm going to remove the {{notability}} tag for the third time. Please dont' edit war further if without explaining your reasons. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, Bloomberg is a database entry, not a detailed discussion on the subject. The VW link is associated with the subject and cannot be used.
- I'm not sure that ceoworld.biz is a reliable source, but let's assume it is, and it discusses the subject at length.
- The first piece in autonews.com discusses with the subject at length, but it's not about the subject.
- The second piece appears to be behind a pay wall, what I can tell about it is that it's Diess talking about the new VW electric line, not about Diess.
- That leaves one possibly RS. WP:NBIO and WP:GNG come into play here.
- I suspect that the subject is notable, but the sources do not show it. That's why the template is there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Interviews of course establish notability. National media publish 2,000 word interviews of presidents and Nobel Prize winners and influential authors and artists. The local grocer gets a 50 word Q&A in a weekly advertising supplement, or does not get interviewed at all. The difference between these two kinds of interviews is their notability. Pay walled or offline articles are your problem, not mine. We don't delete articles because of one editor's access issues, per WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE. You can verify sources, or ask another editor to verify them, at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, Wikipedia:Reference desk, and Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. The notability policy explains this at WP:NEXIST: " Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." And by "existence" it means Published; it links to that info page to remind us that "the mere fact that an item is no longer available online, without cost, or in a retail store is insufficient to nullify its status as accessible. If the item is available online or at a library, it is still considered accessible." The possibility of finding a published source is sufficient, and unless you have actual evidence that another editor is deliberately trying to mislead you or misrepresent a source, the Assume good faith policy requires -- requires -- that you accept it sight unseen.
That aside, it isn't really that hard to find even more coverage of Diess:
- Agence France-Presse 755 words
- Associated Press 636 words
- NY Times 966 words
- NY Times 642 words
- Chicago Tribune 543 words
- Financial Times 964 words
- Etc etc. There's a certain amount of due diligence required on your part; you can't just drive-by tag articles because the evidence of notability isn't quite as convenient as you'd prefer. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Interviews do not always establish notability. I never complained about the paywall other than it made reading the article more difficult. AGF means I have to assume you're not a malevolent actor. It says nothing about your claim. Actually, I can drive-by tag the article. And WP:BEFORE states that I have to do due diligence before I nominate an article for deletion, which is why I didn't take you up on that offer earlier. It is not about tagging an article. In fact, the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide citation to avoid tagging. But I write this to an editor who doesn't know about MOS:INDENTGAP or how to avoid creating backlinks. Your additional sources help show the subject is notable, thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- See this discussion about interviews and how they do not contribute to notability: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&curid=11424955&diff=891303208&oldid=891297731 Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Interviews do not always establish notability. I never complained about the paywall other than it made reading the article more difficult. AGF means I have to assume you're not a malevolent actor. It says nothing about your claim. Actually, I can drive-by tag the article. And WP:BEFORE states that I have to do due diligence before I nominate an article for deletion, which is why I didn't take you up on that offer earlier. It is not about tagging an article. In fact, the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide citation to avoid tagging. But I write this to an editor who doesn't know about MOS:INDENTGAP or how to avoid creating backlinks. Your additional sources help show the subject is notable, thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Interviews of course establish notability. National media publish 2,000 word interviews of presidents and Nobel Prize winners and influential authors and artists. The local grocer gets a 50 word Q&A in a weekly advertising supplement, or does not get interviewed at all. The difference between these two kinds of interviews is their notability. Pay walled or offline articles are your problem, not mine. We don't delete articles because of one editor's access issues, per WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE. You can verify sources, or ask another editor to verify them, at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, Wikipedia:Reference desk, and Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. The notability policy explains this at WP:NEXIST: " Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." And by "existence" it means Published; it links to that info page to remind us that "the mere fact that an item is no longer available online, without cost, or in a retail store is insufficient to nullify its status as accessible. If the item is available online or at a library, it is still considered accessible." The possibility of finding a published source is sufficient, and unless you have actual evidence that another editor is deliberately trying to mislead you or misrepresent a source, the Assume good faith policy requires -- requires -- that you accept it sight unseen.