Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Carama


 * 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 of the debate was keep.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 11:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fred Carama
Vanity page, non-notable vocal instructor, only 204 google hits, I can't see any real reason to keep this article--Dp462090  |  Talk  |  Contrib  |  08:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable person, vanity article. J I P  | Talk 09:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think a Juilliard faculty position is a strong sign of notability, and there is solid evidence he's viewed as notable in his field:   This isn't a field that Google covers well; 204 hits is pretty good. There's a big world out there that isn't well-represented online. Monicasdude 21:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ⇒   SWAT Jester  [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

''This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!''&mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 23:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep He has lots of credentials and if controversial in his field. Seano1 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article has POV issues and fails to meet standards set in WP:PROFTEST.  It is pointless to use Google as a determining factor in AfD debate.  If the individual is notable then update the article accordingly.  If the article cannot stand on its own merit then delete it.  The article must properly cite any claims to notability.--Strothra 01:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep but needs to get rid of all that "great acclaim" stuff. Danny Lilithborne 05:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * comment. please note that the article still fails to meet WP:PROFTEST and that POV issued added to that make this article a very strong candidate for deletion.--Strothra 15:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment by article author to support a keep Comment left above is erronious, I believe that Fred Carama does indeed pass the WP:PROFTEST and I describe as follows: --Having held full professorships at no less than four accredited and prestigious universities, as well as a top-ranked summer school/festival, qualifies Carama as an expert in his field, in that each of these independent schools thought enough of him to pay him handsomely for his expertise. --Carama is indeed held in high esteem by others in his field: a current vocal instructor at The Juilliard School (arguably the most prestigious US conservatory), Robert White, is a STUDENT of Carama's and famed American mezzo-soprano Marilyn Horne consistently refers young singers to Carama and believes him to be the greatest teacher teaching today. I am a good source on this subject as I know Mr. White and Ms. Horne personally. If you are unsure of Horne's credentials, check out her own large wikipedia article! --Carama has been teaching for over 25 years and has taught hundreds of singers, a few of the most successful ones are listed in the article, as well as the aforementioned Robert White. As for POV, I have mentioned that he is controversial and not acclaimed by all. massenetique
 * You need to cite these claims you are making using INDEPENDENT sources. Also, there is not evidence that Robert White is a notable individual. --Strothra 15:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems notable.  Clean up tag maybe?  JeffBurdges 14:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Prof test

 * 1) The person is regarded as an expert in their area by independent sources.  No evidence is given.
 * 2) The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.  No evidence is given.
 * 3) The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality).  No evidence is given.
 * 4) The person has published a well-known or high quality academic work.  No evidence is given.
 * 5) The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.  No evidence is given.
 * 6) The person is known for their involvement in significant events relating to their academic achievements.  No evidence is given.
 * 7) The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student.  Perhaps, this needs to be confirmed by INDEPENDENT sources.
 * 8) The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.  No evidence has been given.

You need to cite your claims with independent sources IN the article. Not simply in the discussion. Your article has far more POV problems than simply stating he's not liked by everyone. No one is liked by everyone. I already removed one POV when you stated that some of his students have gone on to "great acclaim." That was very obviously subjective. --Strothra 15:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of sources. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps you could cite any part of the Wikipedia deletion policy which supports this as grounds for deletion. I would be surprised, however, the policy calls for a good-faith attempt to locate sources and improve articles, with deletion as the last resort. Monicasdude 01:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You are the one assuming bad faith.  I have attempted to find sources which would establish this individual as notable and could find none which succesfully met Wiki guidelines.  It seems that other in this deletion discussion have done so as well.  Please do not insult other users by assuming bad faith in their deletion efforts to clean up Wikipedia.  --Strothra 03:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Response. Please stop distorting what I said. I described the applicable policy -- and you do not dispute the accuracy of my description -- as requiring good faith effort to find sources. The post I commented on called for deleting the article without making any effort to find sources. I didn't allege bad faith in any way; I pointed out that the post was inconsistent with governing Wikipedia policy. Monicasdude 03:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. You insinuated that other editors were violating Wiki policy and committed a bad faith deletion in that they did not seek sources to improve the article.  You stated "I would be surprised, however, the policy calls for a good-faith attempt to locate sources and improve articles, with deletion as the last resort." Thus implying bad faith. The user apparently found no sources to mark this individual as notable and thus found that there was nothing to contribute and rightfully voted for deletion.  There is no violation of Wiki policy in this vote.  --Strothra 03:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Response. Please stop distorting my comments. I was responding to Stifle's comments, which do not conform to the consensus deletion policy. Monicasdude 04:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Stroha. Ben Aveling 10:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Monicasdude. Kappa 09:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please strong signs of notability Yuckfoo 06:30, 16 April 2006 (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.