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. The arguments for retention look more explicit and outweigh the arguments for deletion. MuZemike 00:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Annerose

[edit]

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

non-notable person. Coverage is only in the context of his position as CEO, with no independent notability for him. notability is not inherited. Ironholds (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Notability (people). From available sources on the Web, there seems to be nothing discussing him except trivial and/or incidental mentions of him as Manobi's CEO. There's nothing to say about him except that he *is* the CEO. Note that we don't (currently) have an article on any of the several entities named Manobi either. • Anakin ^(talk) 14:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To say "Bill Gates isn't notable because he's the founder and CEO of Microsoft" is to make a wrong and illogical statement. In this case the cause of notability is the child(Microsoft). Bill Gates's(parent) notability stems from the child. Initially the two were inseparable. This is why the rule of notability "may" or "may not" be inherited and its not "policy" and more of a "guideline" notability is not inherited. A guideline is not a "plan" fixed in stone. Guidelines are flexible. In almost every article about Bill Gates, Microsoft will be mentioned. I have yet to find an article about Bill Gates that does not mention Microsoft. Just like one can't talk about Daniel Annerose without mentioning Manobi. Manobi is the claim to fame and notability.

I will say, "Bill Gates is notable because he was the founder and CEO of Microsoft, and he has reliable, third-party sources discussing him which in most cases, if not always mentions Microsoft."

As far as sources on the web goes:

He has been mentioned in major international news organizaion like the bbc and cnn. A mention by these two news organization would not be trivial or incidental.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2290540.stm --BBC

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/03/i_if.01.html --CNN

There is more detail biographical information on a World Trade Organization(WTO) website of a conference he participated in. That would not be trivial or incidental from a major international organization. The information is also in french. He gets quite a bit of coverage in the French press too although not applicable to english Wikipedia, but adds to notability.

http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/debates_e/daniel_annerose_popup_e.htm

Other more detail biographical information on the web include the following.

http://www.africangreenrevolution.com/en/conferences/2007/speakers/daniel_annerose.html

http://www.acacia.org.za/WEBTIMES/senegal_markets.htm

Here are coverage from other online trade and professional journals.

http://cms.ict4djamaica.org/html/Resources/Agriculture/tabid/70/ctl/Details/mid/436/ItemID/24/Default.aspx

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/july-0707/africans-to-bono-for-gods-sake-please-stop

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/168211/hightech_cell_phones_help_africans_trade_crops/

http://www.kiwanja.net/database/article/article_mobiles_poverty.pdf

http://www.iconnect-online.org/News/ict-update-market-information-systems

http://www.africa-investor.com/article.asp?id=1793

http://www.itnewsafrica.com/?p=108

http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act_241.html

http://www.cellular-news.com/story/12470.php

http://euroafrica-ict.org/events/forum_agenda

significant blogs.

http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/cat_mobile_phone_projects_third_world.htm?p=5

http://kenyonfarrow.com/2007/07/16/africans-tell-bonostop-sending-aid/

Kacembepower (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, mentions are still required to be significant. Mentions on the BBC pass "reliable source", but they need to be "significant" on top of that - BBC = significant by definition isn't valid. Any and all valid references to this person are in the context of his work for the company, and don't provide evidence of his notability as an individual. Ironholds (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir I disagree. The rule doesn't say its required. You are interpreting Notability is inherited rigidly, when the article Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions states,

""Remember that a reason which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", can still have some

Valid points in it. For example, if a person argues for why an article is interesting, and the arguments for

"interesting" are also reasonable arguments for "encyclopedic", it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument

just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay.

As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions,

it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them

to this essay is not encouraged (see also the section Just a policy or guideline below)."

Second Notability is Inherited states:

"Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that ::group."

The notability of Manobi(the event) does apply to Daniel Annerose. He is the founder. In this case notability is inherited. You can't separate Daniel Annerose from Manobi.

Third, Articles about people notable only for one event

"If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or

is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal

notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases,

a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options."

Founder of Manobi that provide real time price information on produce to african farmers, via cell phone which can affect wealth/health on a low tech and low wealth continent. He is not low profile being a participant in a TED conference, WTO conference, and other international conferences, indication of high profile. Plus numerous trade publications and significant blogs are noting his innovation to the point of providing detail biographical information is indicative of high profile. He has been mention not just by the BBC, but by CNN in relation to Manobi, indication of high profile.

Lastly, Articles about people notable only for one event states,

If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be ::appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance ::of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.

This quote is the reason in nutshell why Daniel Annerose is deserving of a separate article.

"Significant"- Manobi provides real time price information on produce to african farmers, via cell phone which can affect

wealth/health on a low tech and low wealth continent.

"if the individual's role within it is substantial"-Daniel Annerose is creator of Manobi

"persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources"- see extensive list above on secondary coverage

Kacembepower (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 00:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since there appears to be more notability for the company than its founder, we really should have an article on the company before creating the article on the person. i will check all the links given before weighing in on deletion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir if you look at most of the information on the web, the two are inseparable. When the company is mentioned, Daniel Annerose is mentioned. You can't separate one from the other or rarily. This is still going back to the notability is not inherited which the very article Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions states should not be interpreted rigidly.

""Remember that a reason which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", can still have some

Valid points in it. For example, if a person argues for why an article is interesting, and the arguments for

"interesting" are also reasonable arguments for "encyclopedic", it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument

just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay.

As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions,

it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them

to this essay is not encouraged (see also the section Just a policy or guideline below)."

Plus if such a rigid standard is used you do realize that quite a few articles on wikipedia, pretty good and established ones would not qualify and would also be setup for deletion? Articles about people notable only for one event is reason why Daniel Annerose should be given a separate article:

Kacembepower (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to business name, adding CEO/founder biographic info to article: he has background in agriculture, which belongs in article on his business. Given the probable current, and proven historical lack of decent news coverage for developing world events, i say err on the side of inclusion. Kacembepower, i never said above that we shouldnt have an article, just that the business is the more notable item. if the business didnt exist, daniel would not have an article, but if he sells the business, article stays. and i agree the two are currently inseparable, which is why i want to see basic biographic info in the article. as the article stands, its really not good. the summary of the business model doesnt say much, and the article really doesnt indicate reason for notability itself, though the references seem to. Why not take the time to improve it? I think you make some valid points, but your arguments are rather long and involved, and have a tone which seems to imply that the other editors here are not really doing their job well. its a little offputting. please take this constructively. sincerely, Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per mercurywoodrose and the overlal sourcing whcih indicates that this is a keep article.--Judo112 (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2009 (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.