Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Lentini


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

James Lentini

 * – ( View AfD View log )

His colleagues are more notable than he is, and even they are not notable enough for Wikipedia per WP:MUSIC. Incarnatus (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Incarnatus, I respectfully disagree. Lentini is recently included in James Michael Floyd's recent Bio-Bibliography of composers. Floyd's preface states that there are over 1600 composers currently teaching in universities in the U.S., and Lentini is one of only 120 selected by the author for inclusion. See also the major feature article in Fanfare Magazine and reviews from Gramophone, Fanfare, and American Record Guide (all available from the Naxos site). In addition, his CD James Lentini Chamber Music was released on the Naxos American Classics label this past year (just take a look at the other composers in the catalog) and his music is published by one of the more important guitar publishers, Mel Bay. Add to this his standing as Dean at Miami University, ranked 34th of all public universities in the U.S. Scot Johnston  (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sounds like a Single-purpose account.  Don't take this personally, Scot, it's just an off-handed way we Wikipedians have to completely ignore whatever good points you might be making.  I think there's also a policy that says a good point is a good point regardless of who makes it, but if you're the one to point that out, you'll probably lose.  Wikipedia politics is a very complicated and frustrating business.  James470 (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your insight, James470. I would say, though, that we would all expect that decisions like these should be made on the facts and criteria stated in WP:MUSIC. The Lentini article lists independent writing about the artist in well-regarded and appropriate publications, the work has been independently reviewed and received radio play, awards are documented, etc. This article certainly doesn't seem to be any more a single-purpose account, for example, than that for Paul Schoenfield. For that matter, many other composer articles seem to have less strong references and sources. Here are just a few examples: Aaron Jay Kernis, Michael Daugherty, Stephen Hartke. Maybe they should all be deleted, but I have a feeling that this doesn't make good sense. Scot Johnston (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. What I meant is that your account, User:Scot Johnson, is a single-purpose account.  With that account, the only things you have done is edit the James Lentini article and participate in this so-called "debate."  What's wrong with that?  In a real encyclopedia like Britannica or the New Grove, there would be nothing wrong with that!  But in Wikipedia, oh my God, it's the mark of the Devil!
 * Zoltán Gárdonyi wrote the article in the New Grove about Franz Doppler. If Zoltán Gárdonyi doesn't know anything about Grace Williams or Harold Shapero, New Grove wouldn't ask him to edit the article about Grace Williams or Harold Shapero.  Here at Wikipedia, you're not only expected to edit articles that are slightly out of your expertise, you should also edit articles on topics you know nothing whatsoever about.  So, don't just edit about James Lentini.  Edit the article about civil war in some African country you've only heard about in Jeopardy clues.
 * And another thing: at New Grove, it would count for something if you're the third most knowledgeable person about James Lentini in the world. Here at Wikipedia, that's a liability if you don't want to see this article deleted.  James470 (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, James470. I did understand your point about single-purpose, which is why I included a link to the Paul Schoenfield article on Wikipedia. Taking a look at its history, it has only one contributor who appears to have only worked on the Schoenfield article. I take the point that I could (and will) contribute to other articles. I'll start today with the numerous articles that have weak referencing in my area of expertise (contemporary music, guitar, etc). Scot Johnston (talk) 4:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Another way to make a case that the Lentini article shows the appropriate musical accomplishments and characteristics per Wikipedia guidelines is to warrant inclusion is to benchmark this article with those of his composer contemporaries on Wikipedia. Here are a few examples with brief commentary: These are just a few samples of composers on Wikipedia of roughly the same generation where both notability and contributor factors appear to fare better for the Lentini article. I respectfully state that I simply do not see a suitable case for deletion (I could cite many, many more examples). Scot Johnston (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeremy Beck: notability per Wiki guidelines not clear by references and citations, several IP address contributors
 * Mary Ellen Childs: notability not robust and clear as Lentini article
 * Harold Fortuin: very thin on notability and referencing; few contributors
 * Orlando Jacinto Garcia: thin on citations and questionable contributors
 * Elliott Miles McKinley: Questionable content and contributors


 * Comment. While I believe that this page already had strong and verified information and references, recent additions of highly reputable sources like Fanfare Magazine, Gramophone Magazine, others have made this an even  stronger article with a high notability factor.  I'm really not sure why this article has been proposed for deletion, especially when reading WP:DEL.  Coolguitarra (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)



Kindly allow me to give an example of an article with an unquestionable notability standard problem: Paul Whitty, and even in this one, it is tagged for improvement (since 2009!), not deletion. I'll state again that the Lentini article covers the bases listed in WP:NMUSIC for composers. Published independent articles about his music by premiere magazines in the classical field, newspaper articles, publishers, a selective bio-bibliographical textbook entry (published), several CD's, the most recent on a major classical label for new music (Naxos American Classics),  radio play, and much more, is all clearly verified and establishes the appropriate notability. No doubt, the article has been even further strengthened with recent updates. Be sure to read the quote by Laurence Vittes in Gramophone magazine, calling Lentini a "classical music success story," etc. It is hard to come by this kind of independent and strong endorsement from a major magazine in the classical music field. Scot Johnston 04:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scot Johnston (talk • contribs)


 * Comment. You're hoping that commonsense carries the day here.  But remember: this is Wikipedia!  James470 (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I think that Scot Johnston has made a good case for why he should pass WP:MUSIC. That specifically deals with minority tastes, and it is important that Wikipedia should not only be a catalogue of US mass culture. There is a lot of truth, too, in what James470 says - some Wikipeidians are inherently suspicious of something that hasn't just been copied from elsewhere on the internet and insistence on 'independence from the subject' often provides no check at all on its veracity. But that isn't actually at the core of what most believe Wikipedia should be, and when you dig deeper you will discover that it is a highly questionable interpretation of what the guidelines actually say. So long as editors can show that they haven't just made the whole thing up then they should not be inhibited from contributing (even though it remains true that if you genuinely know more about a topic than almost anyone else it is better to create or contribute to a website on the topic, where you have editorial control). Wikipedia will then draw from that! --AJHingston (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quick, what's his best known piece? Cat got your tongue? As for the other composers mentioned: Aaron Jay Kernis, Michael Daugherty, Stephen Hartke are all way more notable than Lentini. The other non-notables mentioned (Beck, Fortuin, whatever) should also be nominated for deletion. Flutedude (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Flutedude misses the point. Establishing notability requires independent sources per WP:MUSIC, not whether Flutedude knows the composer or not.  As is well established in several points above, notability is clear by the articles in Fanfare, Gramphone, and other respected sources that independently verify the notability of Lentini by their inclusion of substantive articles and reviews about him.  If Wikipedia were simply a popularity contest, I fear that some very important people within lesser-known disciplines (like contemporary classical music) would be missing.  Coolguitarra (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't attack Flutedude's understanding of the point. Instead attack the fact that he didn't log in to Wikipedia for almost six months and his first edit after that hiatus was to vote in this AFD. You might even argue that he's my sock. On the other hand, he might be your sock which you decided to surface at this point precisely to jacket him on me or anyone else voting "Delete." Regardless of who Flutedude really is, I like his suggestion for more deletion nominations. Incarnatus (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I've read the James Lentini article and the full discussion thread here, and it seems clear to me that sufficient notability has been established. I'm puzzled as to why it was tagged for deletion in the first place, actually.  Just because there may be more notable composers out there, according to some personal opinions, does not discount the notability of this particular composer.  Wikipedia, after all, is supposed to be impartial and unbiased.  It is here to provide information, just like a hardcopy encyclopedia.  Speaking of that, I have 20 Collier's Encyclopedias staring at me right now on my bookshelf, and in leafing through those I know I can find hundreds of people I've never even heard of before, but that does not mean they are not notable.  It just means I don't know everything -- especially when it comes to niche genres, like this one. In a genre that is outside the common mainstream -- whether it is classical guitar, jazz flute, Celtic Rock, or Fluid Dynamics -- not everyone is going to be as well known as Paul McCartney or Albert Einstein (or Stephen Sondheim or Lev Landau), but that doesn't mean they aren't important or relevant, too.  Just my two cents.  Cheers, gentlemen... Joanne McAllister (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Having a Wikipedia article about you can often be a curse rather than a blessing.  Just ask John Seigenthaler, Les Sachs, Daniel Brandt, Joseph Francis Farah, Ron Livingston, etc.  James Lentini himself might be happy when this article survives the deletion voting process.  But it's very possible that a few years down the line he will wish that it hadn't.  James470 (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd like to be on the winning side of one of these for a change, so I'll wait a day or two before deciding which way to go on this one. I wouldn't want this article to go the way of Hot Club of Detroit. Detroit Joe (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for that. Now I know of the very non-notable Keith Buckner as well. Incarnatus (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Kindly note that several additional international and national references have been added to the article, including independent reviews, stories, press releases, and more, from top-tier outlets in the new music realm, including one from New Music Box of the American Music Center that highlights Lentini's selection as a juror alongside composer/guitarist icon Leo Brouwer here: "An American Composer in Spain;" and another from Spain here: ABC de Sevilla. So far, there are 15 verifiable references and 10 external links from credible sources that establish notability. Scot Johnston  (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, that would impress a normal music aficionado.  Especially Fanfare.  But remember, at Wikipedia, you're not dealing with normal people.  Many have a pathological need to always be right even in those cases when a normal person would admit he's wrong.  James470 (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability from Orchestra Hall for writing Orchestra Hall Suite does not attach to James Lentini. Detroit Joe (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Joe, let me respectfully point out that nowhere does the notability factor in this article hinge on whether or not the notability from Orchestra Hall in Detroit attaches to James Lentini. Instead, notability is based on the factors in WP:COMPOSER, WP:MUSIC, etc., and this article covers those bases extensively and repeatedly with 16 references from credible sources that are all verifiable, in addition to 10 other links.  Even at that, however, your point here is arguable.  If you read the liner notes to Orchestra Hall Suite see here: Naxos Liner Notes, you'll see that the work was commissioned for bassoonist Paul Ganson of the DSO, who is known as "the man who saved Orchestra Hall," and who performs the piece on the Naxos disk with his other colleagues from the DSO, including principal 2nd violinist Geoffrey Applegate, principal violist James VanValkenburg, and assistant principal cellist  Marcy Chanteaux.  These are top-flight performers from the DSO who recorded the piece for the largest classical music label in the world (Naxos).  All of this, I would suggest, is notable. One other point--I noticed that your previous comment stated you wanted to wait to see where this talk page was going before deciding, but your sentiment was that you didn't want to see it deleted.  First off, I'm not sure that your waiting to see which way the wind was blowing is a useful way to make a responsible decision, and next, the initiator of this delete request (Incarnatus) said after seeing your post:  "thank you for that. Now I know of the very non-notable Keith Buckner as well."  If you take a look at the Keith Buckner page now, you'll see that Incarnatus  went for a "delete" request on the Buckner page, as if to punish you for your "near keep" vote on the Lentini article.  I wouldn't think that this is kind of interacting that is desired by the protocols of good faith or etiquette (see WP:EQ).  Such action, I would surmise, could cause others looking at this talk page to fear retribution for making a "keep" request here.  The final point is this: it is difficult to discredit the verifiable references in the Lentini article, because they are from some of the most respected authors and venues in the business of classical music.  Scot Johnston  (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. That is precisely the kind of interaction desired by James Wales et al.  As long as the drama stays high, editors become emotionally involved and don't mind that they're working for free.  This kind of interaction would never happen at New Grove or Britannica.
 * Anyway, to get back on topic: James Lentini would do well to ask James Hartway "How does it feel not to have a Wikipedia article about you?"  I don't know what exactly Hartway's response would be, but it would go along the lines of "Just fine."  James470 (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Hello James470.  I have appreciated your comments on this page. Leaving my opinion out of this, it seems that guidelines for "neutral point of view" (WP:NPOV) and verifiability (WP:VERIFY) need to be at center stage, so that arguments, bias, alternative motives, etc. are removed from the picture.  In short, the independent references and links in the article itself should be the criteria used to decide about the suitability of an article.  This one passes that test easily, it seems, with high profile articles, reviews, etc. all in place, and you said as much yourself when you claimed replied to the references listed by this earlier comment "...Yes, that would impress a normal music aficionado [the references listed].  Especially Fanfare.  But remember, at Wikipedia, you're not dealing with normal people."  Many have a pathological need to always be right even in those cases when a normal person would admit he's wrong."  So take the personal opinions out of it (whether "normal" or not), and the facts seem to be clear that we have a suitable article. Scot Johnston (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. If you want to prevent article deletion, then abnormal people are the ones you need to convince.  Deletionists use Wikipedia's policies the same way terrorists use the Bible:  selectively to the extreme.  James470 (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment, and Suggestion: I've reviewed the James Lentini article again, and caught up on the discussion thread here, and in summary it seems the arguments in favor of deletion are pretty weak, and the arguments for keeping the article are fairly robust. Lentini meets the criteria for notability, so let's keep him, and move on. Enough said, in my humble opinion, and politics aside. At this point I think it's pretty clear-cut and logical: in the genre of "contemporary classical guitar composers," Lentini is notable. I do suggest, however, that the article needs clean-up to meet Wikipedia's standards and more clearly present this notability: the text of the article is sparse, while it has a long list of items under References and External Links that are not clearly connected to the text.  I think more verbiage and in-line citations are needed.  So, I suggest that the article be tagged for Clean-up, instead of Deletion.  What do you say, fellas?  Peace treaty?  Joanne McAllister (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I change my mind. Besides, the argument I used here was copied from someone else who disagreed with me that the Hot Club of Detroit is notable. I lost that one. I think keepers will win this one. Detroit Joe (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2011 (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.