The result was redirect to A-ha. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Fails WP:GNG/ WP:NBIO, and I do not believe being a producer for a notable band is an automatic WP:NMUSIC pass either. I could not locate sources with substantial coverage of Ratcliff. All sources cover him only peripherally, as a producer for a-Ha. The article is now primarily an autobiography. Would accept a redirect to a-Ha as an alternative to deletion. Jfire ( talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I will take legal action if you have the cheek to remove this article", "
My lawyers will only reveal their legal expertise", "
before I wake up my lawyer and we can sort this out legally", and "
It will be very easy for me to find out who you really are" is not okay here. You need to avoid making statements that can be construed as legal threats or threats to reveal someone's identity.
Why am I having to justify facts that are common knowledge in my industry?" is a valid question. The answer is that one of the pillars of Wikipedia is that information here is verifiable: readers must be able to check that any information is not just made up. That means we can't rely on what's "common knowledge" in any industry unless it's been published in reliable sources somewhere. When your autobiography is published, we may be able to use it as a source in a-ha (depending on whether it is self-published or not). But we can't just rely on your own personal statements here, even if we believe them. Jfire ( talk) 04:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Sirfurboy
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.johnratcliff.com/john--a-ha | ![]() |
? Reliable but self promotional | ![]() |
✘ No |
https://web.archive.org/web/20220521024623/https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/ha-take-me | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://thequietus.com/articles/18805-aha-hunting-high-and-low-take-on-me-review-anniversary | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01727601 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
However the redirect is reasonable as this is clearly someone who gets a mention regarding a-ha and is borderline notable. Although the above assessment covers what is in the page, there could be more secondary sources on him. However the name is quite common and searching is complicated by finding other notable Jonh Ratcliffes. I was not able to find any suitable coverage, but if multiple independent reliable secondary sources with sigificant coverage can be found, then, of course, this would be a notable subject for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 10:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was redirect to A-ha. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Fails WP:GNG/ WP:NBIO, and I do not believe being a producer for a notable band is an automatic WP:NMUSIC pass either. I could not locate sources with substantial coverage of Ratcliff. All sources cover him only peripherally, as a producer for a-Ha. The article is now primarily an autobiography. Would accept a redirect to a-Ha as an alternative to deletion. Jfire ( talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I will take legal action if you have the cheek to remove this article", "
My lawyers will only reveal their legal expertise", "
before I wake up my lawyer and we can sort this out legally", and "
It will be very easy for me to find out who you really are" is not okay here. You need to avoid making statements that can be construed as legal threats or threats to reveal someone's identity.
Why am I having to justify facts that are common knowledge in my industry?" is a valid question. The answer is that one of the pillars of Wikipedia is that information here is verifiable: readers must be able to check that any information is not just made up. That means we can't rely on what's "common knowledge" in any industry unless it's been published in reliable sources somewhere. When your autobiography is published, we may be able to use it as a source in a-ha (depending on whether it is self-published or not). But we can't just rely on your own personal statements here, even if we believe them. Jfire ( talk) 04:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Sirfurboy
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.johnratcliff.com/john--a-ha | ![]() |
? Reliable but self promotional | ![]() |
✘ No |
https://web.archive.org/web/20220521024623/https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/ha-take-me | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://thequietus.com/articles/18805-aha-hunting-high-and-low-take-on-me-review-anniversary | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01727601 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
However the redirect is reasonable as this is clearly someone who gets a mention regarding a-ha and is borderline notable. Although the above assessment covers what is in the page, there could be more secondary sources on him. However the name is quite common and searching is complicated by finding other notable Jonh Ratcliffes. I was not able to find any suitable coverage, but if multiple independent reliable secondary sources with sigificant coverage can be found, then, of course, this would be a notable subject for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 10:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)