Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient vocal method


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancient vocal method

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * Note: During this discussion User:Warrington moved the article to Ancient vocal methods and re-wrote it on a different subject. See Comments on the new version at the bottom of this discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (Updated Voceditenore (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

This is a highly dubious concept/theory that is entirely unknown and unused by all except the article's creator, Jacocks5671. The only real source is his book, which appears to consist of unreferenced conjecture. It is not a scholarly thesis, and a check of WorldCat shows that no libraries hold it. I've googled "Ancient vocal method" (general, news, scholar, and books). Absolutely nothing comes up except the Wikipedia article, its mirrors, and the web sites of the article's creator. Other editors have tried to tone it down, but it's basically unfixable. The article was created on July 19 2007, the day before the self-published book Anatomy of Bel Canto: Stroke of the Mask, Chest Support, and Proof for the Ancient Method by Kendrick Jacocks  came out. References to it were then sprinkled around Wikipedia, e.g., , ,. Presumably it was also in Jacocks' Wikipedia "biography" which has now been speedy deleted twice. Voceditenore (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources in article. Taking nominator's word that good faith efforts were made to find others. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Google search results for "ancient vocal method": Google, Google News (all dates), Google Scholar, Google Books. You get similar results for googling Kendrick Jacocks, apart from a German newspaper article about a show he was going to be in called "Strangers in the Night"  (Berlin, December 2007). Voceditenore (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Voceditenore.Nrswanson (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If he publishes a book and then cites himself here, it's still original research. Rklear (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rewrigt but do not delete It is a very narrow topic, but I have read and heard about this theory, mostly in the works about the Antic Greek Theater. I do not expect that this kind of information is available on Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrington (talk • contribs) 20:06, 3 November 2008
 * Comment Obviously there are various ancient vocal methods (plural) that are discussed in the literature, in a variety of cultural contexts, and especially for the theatre of ancient Greece both in terms of vocal methods for conveying different aspects of the drama and vocal methods for projecting in a large amphitheatre. But that's not the same thing here. This article claims to be about "the ancient vocal method", as if it were a single unified concept. The theory is that it all began in Africa and ended up as "the bel canto technique" (in itself a spurious notion) used in 19th century Europe. This is all based on an OR synthesis of various "coincidences", e.g. Vincenzo Bellini who wrote bel canto operas came from Sicily and Sicily is geographically close to Africa; a famous 19th century vocal pedagogue, Manuel García was Spanish and Spain was invaded by the Moors, etc. etc. The most bizarre and unreferenced assertion in the article is about Miguel Fleta (a Spanish tenor) allegedly termed the "Lord High Keeper of the Seal of the Ancient Vocal Method". This may have been said about him by someone but I'm pretty sure that in that context, "ancient" referred to the various opera singing methods used in the 19th century (Fleta was active 1919-1935). In any case, brilliant though he was, he went into a widely documented premature vocal decline - so much for "the ancient vocal method", alas. Voceditenore (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ansver There is no other article on Ancient vocal methods on Wikipedia. You may correct the parts that are wrong accordnig to your comments, but you do not need to delete the whole article. You can leave the article so other  editors will find it and will use it like a base, because as you wrote Obviously there are various ancient vocal methods (plural) that are discussed in the literature, in a variety of cultural contexts, and especially for the theatre of ancient Greece, both in terms of vocal methods for conveying different aspects of the drama and vocal methods for projecting in a large amphitheatre (through comedy and tragedy masks). You can call it ancient vocal methods (plural), with the proper references. Warrington (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply To correct the parts that are wrong in this article would literally mean blanking it and starting all over again with completely different content on what would basically be a completely different subject. If you or anyone else is prepared to do that and can produce a viable stub before this deletion discussion finishes, fine. (The article would also have to be moved to Ancient vocal methods). But it cannot be left blank or with only circular content like "Ancient vocal methods are the methods of voice production used in ancient times" on the off-chance that someone will find it and fill it in. Besides, there are existing articles where the material you're talking about could be added, or where the red link (Ancient vocal methods) could be incorporated into the text, e.g. Theatre of ancient Greece, Voice projection, Singing, etc. Voceditenore (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I will do the job, as god as I can, and you will help me whith what you think is missing from it, instead of just critisising it, Ok? Warrington (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure what you're planning to do with the topic, but nothing from the current article should stay, in my view, including the reference. The currrent content is a fanciful 'theory' with absolutely no basis in fact, written by a non-notable author purely to publicize his non-notable manual about bel canto opera singing. By his own admission there is no supporting evidence for any of his assertions apart from his own imaginings.. The material about Fleta is wrong, the material about bel canto technique is wrong, and the bit about nasality is frankly flaky. There are no "teachers who advocate the Ancient vocal method" (apart from the author in question) because it exists only in his imagination. My own advice to you would be to let this AfD run its course and meanwhile work on a completely new article under a proper title (for one thing, you'd have to define what period you mean by "ancient") and then publish the article when you at least have a viable referenced stub. Deleting this one, makes no difference to that and the name needs to be changed anyway. Voceditenore (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree with Voceditenore. After looking at what you have done Warrington, I still think the best thing is to delete the article. For one thing, I wouldn't view the Jacocks book as a reliable enough source to even discuss ancient singing and I have several issues with the content on ancient singing. For example, the first recorded mention of the term "head voice" was around the 13th century, when it was distinguished from the throat and the chest voice (pectoris, guttoris, capitis -- at this time it is likely head voice referred to the falsetto register) by the writers Johannes de Garlandia and Jerome of Moravia. Any suggestion of an earlier use or application is at worst false and at best original research. In fact, other than the information taken from the article on Theatre of ancient Greece, the whole thing is blatant original research. You haven't even adequately established that multiple ancient vocal methods existed. The only method substantiated is the one used in Ancient Greek Theatre. So really, this article hasn't done anything to improve the encyclopedia.Nrswanson (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am doing my best, please read the article and help. You seem to be able to contribute. This is a very interesting topic and clearly worth an article in the encyclopedia. Warrington (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Well frankly, I don't think it does. The known ancient vocal methods are either already adequately discussed or could be adequately discussed in there own articles: Chinese Opera, Theatre of ancient Greece, Music of ancient Rome, Music of ancient Greece, Music of Mesopotamia, etc. Therefore this article will simply restate information that is already in other articles. Further, very little is known about vocal methods prior to the 13th century as few written records exist. Really the only methods with a considerable ammount of material are the roots of Chinese opera and Greek Theatre. Two topics already covered in there own articles. Further, these methods developed seperately in there own time, place, culture, etc. so I'm not sure what the benefit would be bringing together an incredibly diverse array of information. This further brings the problem of defining what an Ancient vocal method is. A task that would frankly be original research because the term itself is original research. Nrswanson (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As you say, it is very little known about vocal methods. This is a very good argument for having an article on this, because an encyclopedia should be as complete as possible. Somebody one day would like to know about this subject, because, as you say, it is not a well known topic.  The topic is still very interesting, because it is part of the theater and music history, and is something that should be found in an encyclopedia. I think that listinng pop and rock albums is much less important in terms of an encyclopedia than a topic like this. Now, I am on a place that I can not use or find any books on this topic right now, but you all seems to have enough knowledge to come whith a lot if well informed comments. Using all this energy instead of expanding the article would make a much more costructive contribution for the Wikipedia.. Warrington (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Warrington I don't think you understand wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of articles. The encyclopedia has notability guidelines which you should read. The encyclopedia also has a strict policy against articles that are original research. The reason why this topic shouldn't have an article is because its original concept. You won't find any sources under "Ancient vocal methods" because its an original term. Wikipedia is interested in what is verifiably true and since this topic can't be verified there shouldn't be an article on it.Nrswanson (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nrswanson, I don't think you try to understand either what I am trying to say. Warrington (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete The only cite is the author's book, and it is therefore a circular reference and original research. Could very well be a hoax, too. David WS (contribs)  00:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the new version

 * Comment the article seems to have been rewritten in more general tems--do the objections still hold? DGG (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Now it's an unreferenced stub that looks somewhat like a dictdef and a potential fact tag magnet. Not sure how much of an improvement that is. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment and clarification Yesterday, in the midst of the discussion, User:Warrington moved the article to Ancient vocal methods (plural) and re-wrote it on a rather different subject, although it still has a fragment left from the previous version. I personally find this rather unhelpful, and had suggested that he let the AfD take its course and then create a new article on the new subject if he felt it was a worthwhile topic and had the references for it. However, given the situation, I think we should now discuss whether this new title and basically new article should be deleted. Voceditenore (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this version too. The current unreferenced article now consists of a fragment from the previous article which no longer makes sense in the context (and was highly dubious in the first place), a copy/paste from Theatre of ancient Greece, and a copy/paste of some remarks I had made during the course of this discussion (taken out of context). The topic is ill-conceived and ill-defined. What is the time scope of "ancient"? And the scope "vocal methods"? Vocal methods could also refer to methods of voice production in oratory and ritual story-telling as well as song. The article appears to be concentrating on ancient Greek theatre, but will that be all? Will it include material on other cultures? It is a virtual guarantee of becoming original research and synthesis, especially since research in this area is both sparse and contradictory. See above for Nrswanson's comments on this issue, comments with which I completely concur and also Delphic Hymns. I also share Nrswanson's view that what little material can be found is already in or would be more appropriately added to existing articles, e.g. Theatre of ancient Greece, Voice projection, Singing, Chinese Opera, Music of ancient Rome, Music of ancient Greece, Music of Mesopotamia, Medieval music etc. If and when there is sufficient material in a variety of articles, a WP:LIST could be produced to aid navigation but I would certainly recommend a title other than "List of ancient vocal methods". Voceditenore (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comments above and Voceditenore's excellent summation of the problems of the new version.Nrswanson (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2008 (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.