Talk:Paul Ashley Chase

message: This is one of the founders of the largest media companies in the world. Why wouldn’t you have an article on him? All of these facts are verifiable through books articles and obituaries.
I uploaded his obit. from the Warner News but this is not an on-line source so its probably trash to you, anyway here it is.Mjmcghee
:All we ask is that you cite the books and articles.  That's the evidence of notability, and the source of verifiability, that makes the article suitable for wikipedia.  Just tell us your sources.  Reference the obituary and tell us what is says.  You could start by giving us the link to what you uploaded. Dicklyon 05:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I picked up a cheap used copy of the Warner Bros. book, since that's the only independent secondary source listed.  It has absolutely nothing in it about Chase.  It has a letter from him to Rin Tin Tin's manager saying they're not going to make any more animal movies now that they have talkies.  And it has a note to him to draw up papers about Baby Face.  Not a hint of biographical info.  Everything in the article is unsourced, and the person is clearly not notable per wikipedia guidelines. Dicklyon 03:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that being a founding exec. of Warner Bros. is on its face notable.  The problem isn't notability but verification.  The article needs referencing to reliabel sources, not deletion. Blueboar 18:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Notability requires the citing of evidence.  No evidence, no notability.  If the book on the early history of hte company doesn't even mention his role or position, how notable could he be?  Unfortunately, the obit that his relative says he uploaded never got linked any place and got deleted for lack of a license, so I never got to see what it could verify.  Anyway a founding exec being "on its face notable" is in no way consistent with policy. Dicklyon 18:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It may get deleted for copyright problem, but in the mean time can you give us a link so we can read it? Dicklyon 21:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  I have checked all the info in the article, made minor adjustments, and cited that obituary, which is obviously the source of all the details as you said.  I took out the unreferenced tag, since it's now all sourced.  I left the notability tag, since we still have no independent sources that would suggest he was notable per WP:NOTE. Dicklyon 02:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not notable

message: I have closed the AfD nomination on this article as Keep because there was a bare minimum of acceptable sources to establish notability. Arguably, the result could have been No Consensus, but as a practical matter that would default to keep. In spite of this result, this article should be buttressed with additional sources if it is to avoid another AfD nomination in the future. Newyorkbrad 01:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just bizarre.  One obituary from the subject's company counts as the bare minimum for "multiple independent reliable sources"?  I'll be happy to give it a few more months to collect more sources, but that didn't work last time. Dicklyon 02:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In spite of the wording you quote, one good solid source is sometimes deemed sufficient. These are judgment calls. Hopefully more sources will follow. Newyorkbrad 02:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that one might be enough for some, but here we have zero.  His company newsletter is in no sense "independent" of the subject.  By this standard, anyone who dies is likely to become notable for it. Dicklyon 03:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD closure

message: Keep again.  This time, at least someone came up with the NYT obit, so we have now one semi-independent source.  Still way short of what we'd need for evidence of notability, but it's a step.  Dicklyon (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd AfD closure

message: My take on this article is that surviving afd twice would probably swing toward notability. I've added 2 external links which do confirm a level of importance. I have tried to improve that aspect of the article. Someone needs to decide whether the notability question is over after two Afds. I obviously have no strong feelings one way or the other but the has been tagged for ten months and, in my opinion, has sufficient notability for inclusion. Cheers! --Stormbay (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the tag.  The question is not so much whether he's notable, but whether there are citations that establish that he is notable.  There are not. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The NYT obituary is quite sufficient to do that. At all Afds in the lat 18 months at least, the existence of an actual obit in the NYT has invariably been held sufficient, due to their selectivity. This applies also to the London Times, BTW, but not generally to other newspapers, at least as a matter of course. DGG (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Many people get their three column inches of fame by dying, but that doesn't make them notable. Dicklyon (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that, regarding notability sorting, we've run into a kind of dead end here. AfD has ended in "keep" two times, and without doubt a 3rd nomination today would yield the same result. On the other hand, some editors oppose the removal of the notability tag. So, I will be somewhat WP:BOLD and reset the date counter, so that the article goes back to the end of the queue and can be reconsidered later. (Old date was July 07.) I hope that's an acceptable compromise for the time being. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I had no idea there was a queue!  But why reset the date?  Does deferring consideration of the question help resolve it?  I think not.  By the way, the reason I've been picking on this article is that it's one of a group of family members, added by a family member, and unsupported by independent sources (with the exception of that tiny NYT obituary).  Nothing against Chase, but I did buy a copy of the Warner Bros. history that was cited and found that it says absolutely nothing about him (but does have a copy of one memo to him, and one from him, not otherwise mentioning his name).  If he's not important enough to be mentioned in a book on the company's history, how notable can he be?  Just a bean counter. Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I admit that we don't have too many sources at this time; although a NYT obituary is already quite much, compared with other biographies on WP. It's a borderline case. But from a practical perspective, what do you want to do? Consensus at AfD seems quite clear at this time; the article won't be deleted. Normally, in these cases, we remove the notability tag. But it seems that you object to that. So, the best solution I can think of is to keep the notability tag as a reminder, and reconsider the matter later. Perhaps somebody finds more sources in the meantime; or maybe consensus changes regarding the inclusion standards at WP:BIO. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have notice a tendency for people to remove notability tags in reaction to a failed AfD; but I usually object and put it back.  It's there for a reason: to remind editors that we still need to find and cite independent sources to establish notability per WP:NOTE.  Just because people have declined to delete doesn't mean that's done. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability