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. Arguments for retention focus overly on giving the benefit of the doubt to the editor and do not fully address the issues of the stated WP:MUSIC violations. I am, obviously, open to a userfication request for further work Fritzpoll (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas R. Vozzella

[edit]
Thomas R. Vozzella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable performer and arranger. Only 264 Google hits, and apparently most are websites which sell his arrangements. The editor who created the page only contributed to this article, plus a few composer biographies where he tried adding links to said commercial websites. Jashiin (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not the authors’ intent to break Wiki rules. It was purely an attempt to do what another suggested. Everyone wants to be helpful, but sometimes the assumption is that there is some overt intent to get away with something, etc. that needs to be exposed. Well it was a pure mistake. This article has been challenged prior, with regard to its worthiness on Wikipedia, and was retained. This was the authors first attempt at an article, a mistake or two were made, and it is being put up for deletion again. A little help would be nice, rather than condemnation. This author has done every suggestion, or at least tried, although wrong, without suggestions to fix is a pretty difficult when you are new to Wikipedia, and or have very little experience at writing articles, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicTex (talk • contribs) 04:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the AfD process is not a "condemnation", as you put it. It is a discussion on whether to keep the article or not, and the result of this discussion still may be to keep it, depending on the consensus. Second, you didn't make any "mistakes". This discussion is here not because of how the article is written, but because the subject of the article may not be notable enough for an encyclopedia. So there is no need to appeal for help and patience, noone is judging you. We're merely trying to determine the subject's notability. So the only way you can help here is by citing more reliable sources: published reviews of Vozzella's work, articles on him from other encyclopedias, references to his works in publications by others, recordings of his music, etc. --Jashiin (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional material was added in support of this article. Just as a note: Just because submissions cannot be proven via the web, does not denote their non-existence. Many of the Journal references, etc. are not available on the web. Old fashion library research is required. All of these references, etc. are sited. In order to prove the existence of compositions links to these sites are required. They have been removed as they have been said to be commercial. Some of this is a two edged sword; wrong if you do, wrong if you don't. This person is highly involved in the choral conducting field, because of his work in the church; visibility on the web is minimal (but in terms of those in the church music field 200+ hits on Google is great). Having choirs perform and ACDA and MENC events is not a small accomplishment. Having choral compositions published is also a huge accomplishment in the choral field. Dr. Vozzella, is notable, and his achievements supersede many in the field. If he were an orchestral conductor and did not work in the church, his visibility would be increased ten-fold. I do hope you will re-consider removing Dr. Vozzella for deletion, in consideration of the above. Also, this author is open to corrections, suggestions, etc. and has, to his detriment followed the suggestions of others, as can be seen in the history of this article.MusicTex (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC) MusicTex (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicTex (talk • contribs) 16:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this article has added additional references, and deleted compositions that have no web based references. The published compositions had links previously. However, it was suggested that these links were too commercial in nature. Thusly they have been removed. The recordings have been up-dated to include the distributors of the recordings. If this is not acceptable, they will be removed. Each thing that this author does is to follow the suggestions of the many people that make them. There might be too much help coming, as everyone has their own ideas and thoughts. Probably after all the suggested changes, additions etc. are made, the article may revert to the one originally published. That article did not have this much attention, and/or suggestions. Again, this author is making all the changes, etc. that are suggested. I respectively ask that it be left, and allowed to develop. Thank you! MusicTex (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Said compositions are published by firms that specialize in choral music. The articles and published reviews are in the Choral Journal. News paper articles, where available, have been link to support claims. Maybe looking at the items and fixing things would be helpful. Isn’t anyone free to edit. Well edit, and check the sources. Just because you haven’t heard of them, doesn’t constitute their validity or lack thereof. There seems to be a push to delete without true discourse. MusicTex (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is everyone who performs at the (Washington) White House automatically notable? To Steve Dufour: all publications need to decide what they should, or shouldn't be covering. That's unavoidable. What we are trying to do here is apply rules that are fair and even-handed, and lead to objective decisions. Do you want to take part in the process? --Kleinzach 03:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is why I take part in AfD and other discussions.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, the user in question started editing in early November 2008. Hardly a "new user". --Jashiin (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me share, once again, that in the choral field, the number of compositions he has published, journal articles and reviews, as well as major performance venues is more than many of the bios in Wikipedia that have gone un-challenged. Ones field, publications, etc, may vary. In the field of church music, Dr. Vozzella is a leader in the field. Choral conductors and church musicians, as stated above are not as high profile as orchestral conductors. However, on the merits of having 29 years experience, and his accomplishments, he far exceeds in the field of church music, which seems to be his primary field of practice. In choral music, a single choral composition that is published is equal to one recording (1,000’s of copies, and used by 1,000’s of people). He performs weekly on radio, television, and live web casts, and pod casts. And, again, many who challenge this article are relying solely on web references. There are numerous references that are hardbound that will be added. However, that takes a bit more time than just surfing the web, as has much of his research and published works taken. He is the sole authority on the music from T. S. Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral. All of these achievements together are more than enough notability in the field of choral and church music. MusicTex (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've repeatedly stated that choral composers, arrangers and conductors are "not as high profile as orchestral conductors", that "in the church music field 200+ hits on Google is great", etc.; and from your words it seems that church and choral music are fields shunned by most, obscure, and difficult to study using online resources. However, some simple Google searches produce, for instance, choral composer/arranger John Rutter: 346,000 Google hits, a great number of compositions and arrangements, recordings produced by various artists other than Rutter himself, published compositions, reviews.. anything you want. Or here's another choral composer/arranger/conductor, less prominent: Alice Parker. There are 82,000 Google hits for her, and again, massive lists of compositions, recordings, reviews, etc. And both Rutter and Parker are living persons. Seems to me that contemporary choral music isn't that obscure, and that 200+ hits are not particularly great.
According to you, plenty of paper references exist that "will be added", but when will they be? Your article is 6 months old, plenty of time to add some. Suppose you didn't know you should provide references. But this AfD is 11 days old, so you've known about the references problem for more than a week, AND you have an opportunity to ask Dr. Vozzella personally - but the article is still not referenced properly. The "Worship Arts Journal" seems to be something really, really obscure - there are five Google hits, two of which are to your mentions of it on Wikipedia and CPDL. And what are the Choral Journal articles? Does "James Jordan review" stand for a review of Jordan's work by Vozzella, or a review of Vozzella's work by Jordan? None of the issues cited are available at the Choral Journal website. If those are reviews written by Vozzella, they're not really references showing his notability.
To recapitulate, your main points are that (1) choral composers are generally obscure, and (2) plenty of references for Dr. Vozzella exist, only not available online. However, (1) is easily disproven with Google, as I have demonstrated. As for (2), we have only your word for it. The way things are now, it looks like Dr. Vozzella has composed two choral pieces (and produced a dozen arrangements) and released some self-published records of own works. And the entire situation looks like a textbook example of WP:COI, complete with tries to advertise the subject by adding commercial links. --Jashiin (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate everyone’s assistance. If it is still here when I get to a library, I will work on it, if not, it will be gone. I tried, oh well, lesson learned. Thanks! MusicTex (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again? MichaelQSchmidt: You've already given us your opinion once before (see above 17 April). --Kleinzach 23:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Sorry. Struck earlier userfy vote based upon continued good faith wish to improve. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More