Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Ashley Chase

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, although additional referencing would be in order. Arguably, the result could be No Consensus rather than Keep, but as a practical matter that would default to Keep anyway. Newyorkbrad 01:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Ashley Chase

Paul Ashley Chase (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No evidence of notability can be found. The entire contents of the article is from an obituary in his company's newsletter. There is not a single independent source that mentions him, as far as anyone has been able to show. I have pushed the authors and friends of the article for months to find any evidence of notability; face it, he was a bean counter. Dicklyon 02:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The closest he comes to passing the notability guideline is The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. but as no sources on him can be found, it can't really be said that his contributions are "widely recognized." faithless (^speak) 05:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, accomplishment is not notability. There appear to be no sources treating the subject sufficiently for a biography, regardless (in Google Books, one mention, a listing of company officers). --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep One of the founders of Warner Brothers is inherently part of the historical record of the entertainment industry.There should however be other sources--though it will take some work with print, being 1946. ,DGG (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page, I already found and bought the book on the early history of Warner Brothers, and they have nothing to say about him. I've done lots of searching, but not in old newspapers. Nobody else who supports this article has found anything either. What does one normally do with people that you feel ought to be notable, but there's no evidence found? And why does one feel that the controller of a big entertainment company would be notable? Dicklyon 02:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is one of the founders of a media company that is one of the largest in world. AOL Time Warner is also one of the largest distribution and music companies in the world. There is a reference source provided and I have looked up the subject in the Warner Brothers archives at USC his name is on almost every legal document for organization of the corporation. His name also appeared on all of the major stars paychecks from 1912 to 1939. P.A. Chase was also, what we would call today, the day-to-day Chief Operations Officer of the corporation; the title back then was Assistant Secretary of the corporation.

If Wiki can support articles about Bob Greenberg, Marc McDonald, Maria Wood, Paul Allen, Gordon Letwin, and Bob O’Rear it can surly support an article about Paul Ashley Chase. Without his significant contributions to the business structure of Warner Brothers, AOL Time Warner wouldn’t exist in its present form. He was responsible for the budgeting and accounting for each motion picture production during his time at Warner Brothers. He also handled all of the day-to-day legal and accounting matters for the corporation including union matters and contract employees (this included all of the stars of that period). Joegillus 04:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joegillus (talk • contribs) 04:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Joe, the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument carries no weight. Do you have any comments with respect to the requirements of WP:NOTE? That's all that's at issue here. Dicklyon 05:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Joe, it is also worth pointing out that yours is a Wikipedia:single-purpose account for biographies of members of the McGhee family, of which Chase was a part. Do you have a WP:COI? Dicklyon 05:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have pertinent to say about the content of the article or my support of the article? Your comments lack veracity and seem to be ad hominem attacks on anyone that is interested in single subjects of research. Since I don’t like the use of abbreviations due to semantic meaning differentials I can only assume either WP:COI refers to World Press Code of Information or Wikipedia conflict of information. I have no information about either of these subjects and I don’t have any conflict of interest.

Dick, do you have some Wikipedia conflict of interest; your picture, name and other information is on Wikipedia. Why is that? Ego is a strange and wonderful thing if it is used in a productive way. Note, I don’t have my picture on Wikipedia or any place else on the web because I don’t have a conflict of interest.

You seem to be very interested in the Chase/McGhee families are you a member of one of these families or involved in the McGhee/Howard feud or been wronged by the McGhee Tyson Airport or Lawson McGhee Library? You must have other interests beside the rather arduous navel gazing exercise of article writing, proof reading, and source checking of McGhee/Chase material on Wikipedia

In all seriousness, if all the founding board of Microsoft has articles about each individual, as noted in my first “Strong Keep” paragraph, then Wikipedia has set precedence by accepting said individuals. All common law and most civil law throughout the world uses this system precedence making so that things don’t have to be continuously codified every time something new is added

I don’t need the last word on this subject so this is the last thing I will write in support of P.A. Chase. I know and trust that Dick’s ego will keep the conversation going because he can’t resist writing about this topic. Joe Gillus Joegillus 07:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 76.171.246.143 06:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering that you do not have a conflict of interest. The point of the WP:SPA mention was to alert anyone looking at comments here that you may have a bias. That's all. I have not interacted with any member of the McGhee family or their concerns, except within wikipedia, where I have been nominating articles on non-notable member's of the editors' family for deletion, as I do with many other non-notables outside that family. Dicklyon 23:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As often pointed out, the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument carries no weight. If you truly feel that some microsoft employees (see Category:Microsoft employees) have articles that do not cite multiple independent sources about them, like the problem with the Chase article, feel free to add notability tags, and if no such references are forthcoming, to nominate them for deletion. Or send me a message and I'll help. Dicklyon 20:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete per Faithless. Bearian 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. LotLE×talk 04:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

* Keep One of the founders of Warner Brothers is inherently part, and should be part, of the historical record of the entertainment industry. This is a no brainer! Wikipedia is not in a paper format it can have lots of different bio topics and folk histories that a traditional encyclopedia doesn’t have. I find the sources and references in this article more then antiquate. Nancy olson 05:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There's ONLY ONE reference, and it's his obituary in the company newsletter, which is in no sense independent and therefore can not contribute to a finding of notability. Wikipedia:Inherent notability does not provide a category applicable to Chase, does it? Also, since this is your first and only contribution to wikipedia, can we assume you were recruited as a friend of the family? Or what brought your attention here? Dicklyon 05:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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.