Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Kastle


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard Kastle

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


 * Delete Revised my edit. I agree with ALL reasons for deletion.

I propose the article "Richard Kastle" for deletion, based on the following:

1. The subject is not noteworthy. 2. The author of the article is apparently it's subject (see talk page at Article). 3. The article appears to be spam...self-promotion of it's author. Prof.rick (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - let's extend the benefit of the doubt here, why not? I see independent sources. Also the use of "hereby" in the "proposition" of this AfD galls a body somewhat, it does. X MarX the Spot (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi X: at the risk of being pedantic, I think the problem is the comma right after "article."
 * "hereby" and comma removed Prof.rick (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To Xdenizen and "unsigned"...the issue here is clearly not one of the use of a particular word or the placement of a comma in the title! It's about the article!  Before "extending the benefit of a doubt", let's do our homework!  Scrutiny is essential to the reputation of Wikipedia.  Prof.rick (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Signed to a major record label. Well sourced. Easily passes WP:MUSIC. Pburka (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard Kastle has apparently produced ONE album, in 1991. I don't know how successful the album was, but apparently he has had no recording contract since. Prof.rick (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Two albums, according to Amazon, although the second is not on a major label. Also lots of press coverage.Pburka (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ONE recording on a major label is hardly grounds for "notability", particularly if the album was a flop! As for non-major labels, ANYONE can do that, ANYTIME!  As for press coverage, check his website.  There is just one clip from a newspaper appearing there: the presentation of a "musical scholarship" (when Kastle was a teenager) by the Mayor of Hialeth, Florida. Prof.rick (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- per WP:SPS, WP:BIO, and WP:N. Questionable notability, reads like a CV. Letsdrinktea (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This search suggests there is notability, in the form of newspaper articles over an extended period of time. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep reasonable likelihood of notability from the sources provided above. DGG (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Drmies's link suggests this person may barely pass the first criteria at WP:MUSIC. That being said, this is a non-notable person and I doubt this article will ever be expanded at all, it's a junk article. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional comment, due to the low exposure of this AfD, I suspect this will end up no consensus, do we really want a Wikipedia article on anyone that is mentioned in newspapers a couple times? That doesn't make one notable, it's a common occurance. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements as verified in reliable sources. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - This is apparently a self-authored biography. Check on YouTube, "Hungarian Rhasody no 2 Richard Kastle Liszt with the Horowitz Cadenza".  Here, Mike Caffey, who posted the item at YouTube, and who initiated this Wikipedia article, says:

"The most important notes ever created for a virtuoso are at the the climax of Liszt's most famous piece. Kastle's official web site has a new page that explains this as well as a page that explains the century of virtuoso failure with youtube time codes and faking methods. To get there click on more info next to the photo of Jay Leno and myself, then cick on the web site."

In fact, the picture is of Richard Kastle with Jay Leno. Is Mike Caffey a pseudonym for Richard Kastle? If so, this is a biography created by it's subject. Prof.rick (talk)
 * Don't vote in your own nomination, we already know you want to delete it. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, LonelyMarble! It's the first time I've found a need for AfD, and admit I'm still uncertain regarding priorities and procedures. I changed my "Delete" to "Note". I hope this is satisfactory. Please, don't go away...I may need more help and advice here!!! Thanks, Prof.rick (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to represent any kind of prominence in his field, anything mentioned of note is of course extremely common in the classical music world and indeed expected of any musician, which makes it even less noteworthy. On the subject of the Google news articles appearing over an extended period of time, I think someone may have neglected to notice that there is more than one Richard Kastle in the Google results. His two albums were not only less than popular, they are discontinued and have never been reissued. I think it needs to be made clear that we are not keeping this article out of some kind of good humoured fairness by letting it scrape through, either it's noteworthy or its not. Blurgezig (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The Google news links mostly lead to barely two pages of articles not directly concerning Richard Kastle. Most of them already included in the current article. Also, the number of articles is slightly irrelevant considering they invariably say the same thing over and over, this is less to do with popularity and more to do with how Google works.
 * I agree with reasons for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvu2 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Appears to meet the minimal notability criteria as a musician. Article is at this opoint definitely not a "puff piece" and may actually contain vandalism against the person.  Last edit by asserted COI was a "blank page."  And having a CD go "out of print" is common -- meaning quite little.  In fact, the entire CD industry is on the brink of it itself. Collect (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Meets only one requirement of WP:BAND, #1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. And only barely meets that. -Freekee (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we stay on topic please? We're not here to discuss CD industry politics. Whether or not it contained vandalism at any point has little to do with it being noteworthy. Blurgezig (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets every requirement for notability and verifiability. The objections appear to be coming from single use accounts created just to delete the article. See User:Blurgezig for example, who appears to have a personal grudge against Kastle based on the edits from the account. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find personal remarks such as that are not not permitted in discussion guidelines R A Norton, stay on topic. How recently my account was created is not the issue here. We are not here to interfere with anyones right to vote for a whatever they feel is suitable Blurgezig (talk) 22:51, 23 February 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.