Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Anthony Jay


 * 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   delete. NW ( Talk ) 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard Anthony Jay

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Musician who does not meet Notability (music), but has published an 84 page pamphlet for a music publisher. Has released one album on his own record label. Article was added to wikipedia by his PR company. Tagishsimon (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC) It's worth noting, for the avoidance of doubt, that Burningpetals is Richard Anthony Jay. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The 84-page book (that's book not pamphlet) was published by Schirmer Trade Books, part of Music Sales Group. Schirmer are a large book publisher with offices worldwide. Also, as clearly stated, RAJ has previously been signed to many music publshers and record companies, before releasing an album on his own record label Burningpetals
 * Can you provide references to say he's been on notable record companies? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have just added a reference to a label release in 2007. Only one other label: a Japanese division of a major 10 years ago, so not easy to find references for, other than on a "rare CD's" site. Also, it was a band name, not RAJ. The other references are to music publishers and I have added a reference to a US publisher's news page Burningpetals
 * Just remembered and found another label release and added it as reference (9) Burningpetals (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 14:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability - references provided are either links to his site (or his record labels site), or, in one case, a link to a radio show track listing he made it onto. One play on a radio show does not a notable musician make I'm afraid. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I took up editing of this page after it was started by a publicist. There are many more references to radio playlists, but I didn't think it was a good idea to refer to them all. If that is what is required I will do so. Please confirm. It is also difficult to link to print publications, such as MUSO, whom don't have online versions of references. Also, there are references to more 3rd-party sites than you claim. Finally, I believe working with world-renowned artists such as the Hallé and Davy Spillane, is evidence of notability and there are numerous musicians on Wikipedia with far less notability.Burningpetals
 * Other things exist is not a good reason for inclusion, and notability isn't inherited. If there offline references then great, you can cite books and magazines, provided they are reliable sources (see WP:Cite book for how to do this). Inclusion on radio playlists is not evidence of notability. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about chart success ?? The album was number 16 on the New Age Reporter charts last month. Ref added to page. The book is now, I believe, properly cited. The article seems to demonstrate notability so I'm slightly at a loss as to what else would satisfy you. Burningpetals
 * Our criteria for musicians is set out at Notability (music). It would be helpful if you could point to the criteria you satisfy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No definition of "notable" appears to be given and I further note that "failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". Nonetheless 'Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition' certainly applies and is demonstrated by references 4,7,8,9 and 16, with a semi-complete list of works listed in ref 5. 'Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable' also applies, and are demonstrated by 11-13, MUSO magazine citation and the book (or pamphlet as you regard it) and 'Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart' applies also, demonstrated by ref 15. Finally, 'Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc' also applies: most TV uses are uncredited but ref 8 & 9 demonstrates the "inclusion on a compilation album". Incidentally, I take issue with your removal of the underconstruction tag, without any warning or attempt to contact me, whilst the page was still being edited and researched. May I suggest reading Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningpetals (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the verification that any of these works are 'notable composition'? Does 11-13 refer to MUSO, The Silent Ballet time 2? Blogs are not reliable sources, leaving MUSO which looks pretty trivial. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the Wikipedia definition of 'Notable Composition' ?? There is no definition, that I can see, on Notability (music). What makes one composition notable and not another ? Burningpetals (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm neutral on this at the moment, primarily due to the New Age Recorder report of playtime. That said, I notice that Burningpetals is the name of Jay's band, website, and the .com of all advertised emails, as well as the site hosting a significant portion of the referenced sources. Also, all contributions up to this point by user:burningpetals appear to be solely on the article under discussion. Burning, in the interest of disclosure, would it be safe to say that you have a vested interest in the subject matter?  - Qi na el  &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&omega; 01:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Only 3 of the 16 references are burningpetals .... not that significant. But, yes - I've never tried to hide the fact that we are the record company. If I was trying to hide it then obviously I would have chosen a different username !! But an author having a Vested_interest is not a reason for deletion, nor is anywhere as serious as a COI: anyone who knows enough to create an article, obviously has an "interest". As to not having contributed to anything else, in the 10 days since I joined, I have been subjected to plenty of sarcasm, insinuation and been accused of being a sockpuppet (wholly without evidence I might add). Hardly the kind of welcome to encourage further participation .... Burningpetals (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It's not so much about trying to hide as it is about disclosing ahead of time, as per WP:COI. As you might or might not have noticed, I'm neutral regarding whether this article should be deleted or not, primarily on the basis of the "New Age Top 40" chart. I'm uncertain as to the nature of that chart and how it's ratings are assessed, so I'm uncomfortable saying "yea" or "nay" since that might tip the notability rating for me, depending. One of our guidelines is simply to announce ahead of time if there is a vested interest for courtesy to others in reviewing your comments; another is to assume good faith. While I'm sorry if you've not received that elsewhere (though I'm not sure where else it would be, given your edit history...) I'd appreciate if you would assume good faith from me. I notice you tend to cite policies in a rather aggressively defensive manner, such as suggesting people read WP:DONTBITE when they disagree with your position. This isn't a personal discussion about you or about the subject of the article, and I don't think anyone has been unreasonable thusfar. Simply because you do not like something a person says does not make it a violation of policy. I suggest stepping back for a minute from the AfD and taking a breath before assuming someone is making insinuations, sarcastic remarks, accusations, etc. That said, I'm interested in more information about this Top 40 chart. Is it a national chart? Can it's reputation be established independently? How does it decide how albums are rated?  - Qi na el  &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&omega; &#124; δίδωμι 16:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Qinael. It is my understanding that NAR charts are calculated from a large number of radio stations, predominantly in N.America but also a few overseas: so at the very least, it's National. If you click here you can see the names of some of those stations and the 'Select Stations/Playlist' button on that page shows the entire list. I'm not sure if the scoring calculations are public knowledge - probably not otherwise one would be able to game the system - but I imagine it's number of plays with some kind of weighting for larger radio stations, but maybe there is more to in than that. As to it's reputation, I'm not sure how it could be verified exactly. A Google search shows up a lot of posts referring to it's yearly awards, it's charts, interviews, etc. as does a search here on WP.Burningpetals (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never tried to hide the fact that we are the record company, you say; but you are not very upfront about the fact that you are Richard Anthony Jay, the subject of the article under discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that accurate, Burningpetals? Are you in fact Richard Anthony Jay?  - Qi na el  &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&omega; &#124; δίδωμι 16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I am - I thought I had already made that clear in answer to your vested interest. And a few of the sites referenced in the article clearly state that burning petals is my record company. FWIW, I should also point out that I had no knowledge of the article's creation and found out due to my automated daily Google search. So - again - I don't believe there is a COI Burningpetals (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But you do confirm that Kathleen Adler - WildCatPR - who started the article, is or was your PR? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes that is correct. I started adding references to the article after I discovered it was put up for speedy deletion (by you, I believe). Adding references is covered under 'Non-controversial edits' at Wikipedia:COI Burningpetals (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes Notability (music) due to 'Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart'Burningpetals (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have very considerable doubt that the zonemusicreporter chart would be considered national or eligible under WP:N(Music). Details of how the chart is made up are scant; we do not know the input base nor - I think crucially - do we know which records are eligible for the chart and which not. Certainly the tracks listed on the chart all seem to be very obscure. UNless we know what we are dealing with here, I doubt that we can accept it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already provided a link above to the location of the "input base". As to eligibility, any record is eligible: broadcasters can play what they like and then if it is played enough times it appears in the charts. As to "obscurity" unless you are a fan of New Age music, I'm sure they would seem obscure. Though frankly, I'm surprised if you haven't at least heard of Philip Glass or Tangerine Dream.Burningpetals (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, you have me there. I've met PG and seen TD, both in the charts at 67 & 62. Sadly your link to the input base is less than compelling evidence. It infers that input /may/ have been received from any of a long list of radio stations, but it does not (unless you are a member, presumably) actually show who voted. So was the chart based on inputs from 5 shows? 50? 500? There's nothing on the site to tell us. I refer you to WP:Duck: any chart in which only one of the top ten artists is known to wikipedia probably reflects well the relative lack of notability of the artists. BTW, - Qinael posed a question for you a few paragraphs back. I'm sure you'd not want to overlook it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please direct me to the section of Notability (music) that requires everything you just asked for. Because as far as I can see, I have proved that it is a National chart. Notability (music) says nothing about requiring a certain number of artists to be known to Wikipedia or requiring a certain number of "inputs". Furthermore you don't seem to understand the concept of an airplay chart: there is no "voting" involved. It is an aggregation of data, possibly with some weighting applied by the aggregator (but I don't know for sure, as already explained above). Burningpetals (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me try to explain again. If we consider, say the UK Singles Chart, we learn that it gets input from around 6,500 UK retail outlets. We know nothing at all about how many inputs are in the zonemusicreporter chart in which your record appears. But let's try a thought experiment. How likely is it, realistically, that Koyaanisqatsi is charting, 27 years after its first release? And if it is, does that not suggest a very small sample size? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My request was a perfectly reasonable and valid one: please answer it, otherwise it seems like you are passing off your personal requirements as official Wikipedia requirements. Given that Koyaanisqatsi was performed live at the Hollywood Bowl last month, with the LA Philharmonic and Philip Glass, I'd say it's extremely likely that it would chart !! Burningpetals (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We're trying to establish if the zonemusicreporter chart constitutes a national chart. That is my answer to your "Please direct me to the section of Notability (music) that requires everything you just asked for". Tagishsimon (talk) --18:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To the unsigned poster above me, it has already been established that the chart is National (if not International). Anyone can verify by looking at the list of broadcasters whose data is used to aggregate the chart (here and then click on 'Select Stations/Playlist'. Many of the stations listed are on Wikipedia. Tagishsimon is infact demanding extra criteria, such as the chart having a minimum number of stations, which does not appear to be required of Notability (music). Burningpetals (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, no such thing has been established, except in your mind. I;ve referred the question to WP:CHART. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: to the question "does charting on the zonemusicreporter chart count for meeting criteria 2 of WP:MUSIC?" in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Record charts we have so far one resounding "no". --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The debate at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28music%29 would seem to indicate that RAJ's two compilation appearances, is also grounds for a keep under Notability (music), at least until Tagishsimon succeeds in changing the wording of the criteria. Burningpetals (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be consensus there that the requirement is that the compilations are notable. Are you making the claim that the compilations your tracks have been on are notable? Or are you wishing to suggest that any compilation no matter how obscure should suffice. I'd be grateful if you'd keep the ad hominem attacks to yourself. This is one of the problems having to argue these matters with the subject of the article, and one of the reasons we have WP:COI - it's all too easy for the subject of an article to get emotionally involved in the issue. Seeking clarification at appropriate places - as I've done twice in this AfD - would seem a fair and reasonable approach, one giving maximum consideration to the question of your notability. Suggesting that wikipedia policy will be bent merely to exclude you is not a healthy course of argument. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no attacking going on. I simply pointed out that you are seeking to change the wording of a policy and such change would mean that this article would not meet criteria. I did not say that this was your motive. Agreed ? You have acknowledged on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28music%29 that, under current wording, the compilations do not need to be notable. I am not going to muddy the water by saying whether I think they should be notable or not. I will further say that I would argue one of the compilations is notable because it was compiled by Wikipedia/British_Phonographic_Industry and therefore could be described as authoritative. Burningpetals (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As it currently stands the criteria clearly states that the compilations must be notable. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" (bolding mine). Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: I do not think this should be deleted, considering the amount of sources there are and does seem to pass Notability (music). However, I do believe that it should have a discography section. I will go ahead and clean up the area that talks about Dead Can Dance, since that is some text that I find fault with. Backtable Speak to Me  about what I have done  22:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Discography section is a good idea. I shall add one later this week. Burningpetals (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There are enough sources that, taken together, seem to suggest reasonable notability for an independent source; foremost among these the mention of the album in Muso magazine and the inclusion in the Association of Independent Music's lineup. The playing on BBC3's "Late Junction" does not, to me, suggest notability considering the show is actually known for it's use of obscure music. Likewise, the New Age Top 40 has proven to be something of a can of worms to try and verify - if they are based on radio playtime, I suggest trying to establish notoriety based on WP:MUSIC criteria 12. I had originally intended to vote "Weak keep" based on the above, however the fact that the British Phonographic Industry included one of his songs on a CD representative of British music to MIDEM, billed as the world's largest music industry trade fair, is really what decided this for me. There's obviously some notability there under WP:MUSIC #10, per the compilation album clause. The inclusion by the A.I.M. also fits under this category. While that of itself would not be enough to warrant inclusion (as #10 itself says,) I think that this combined with the aforementioned is enough to warrant a keep.  - Qi na el  &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&omega; &#124; δίδωμι 23:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentThe exact nature of the coverage in MUSO magazine (reference 11) is not clear from the article, and the link does not go to the MUSO article itself but the MUSO website. Would it be possible to provide a scan of or link to the article, or else summarize it's contents and nature? We have rules against considering self-written materials for notoriety (e.g. if you paid and provided them with a description and they ran it), however if the magazine itself wrote a piece regarding the album, I suspect that would establish notoriety beyond reasonable question.  - Qi na el  &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&omega; &#124; δίδωμι 23:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a scanned copy of the CD preview in MUSO on RAJ's blog here Burningpetals (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete There is a lot of references but there is mot many independent reliable sources. Those that are do not provide significant coverage of Jay. The most extensive is a very short review in MUSO. There is no indication any of the compilations mentioned are notable. Airplay given is far from rotation on a national network and charting is not a good chart. Article suggest there might be a possible notability as a composer but lacks sufficient details and verification. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources are imo either not reliable, or the coverage is not substanitally about Jay and doesn't add to WP:MUSICBIO, which seems not fulfilled. The most mention in reliable sources (outside of press releases) I could find was http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8208310.stm, a trivial mention. Hekerui (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesnt sappear to meet music and the saourcing is either unreliable or tangential or not directly about the subject, Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 26 August 2009 (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.