Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN


 * 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   keep. Courcelles 07:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject fails to meet the general notability requirements of WP:BIO or the more specific ones set forth at WP:Composer. The only third party coverage of the subject himself appears to be his Washington Post 2009 obituary. He did compose a march that one or perhaps two District Commissioners declared in 1961 to be the "official" march of the District of Columbia, but the force of that declaration is uncertain and march's notability is questionable. The march appears to be unknown to residents (or at least, unmentioned) and rarely if ever performed. It is not mentioned in the DC Government webpage and the only other references to it that I could find were the above obituary, two brief references in articles (which in fact appeared to play off its obscurity), here and here, and at the Navy Band's own website here. JohnInDC (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the identification of additional sources by and the comments of editors more familiar with the subject matter, I withdraw my nomination above. JohnInDC (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"The soloist's accordions were plugged into an amplification system that made them so loud that you couldn't hear the band. The distortion was monstrous. There must be an admiral or a captain or someone in the Navy who cares for music, who outranks the band's conductor, Lieut. Comdr. Anthony A. Mitchell, and who will thunder a command, 'Commander, turn that blankety-blank amplifier down.'"
 * Keep. Should obviously be renamed Anthony A. Mitchell, but he was leader of one of the principal US military bands and was considered significant enough for an obituary in the Washington Post, which I think satisfies notability criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note renamed as above. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete is not sufficiently notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 *  Delete , unless reliable sources can be found. A single obituary fails the notability test at NOTE.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that covers an obituary. He wasn't known for his death, but for his life. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since obituaries are often paid for and written by (or on behalf of) the family, they can and should be treated as reliable, of course. For the same reason, however, they cannot reasonably establish notability, because they are not third-party sources, let alone "multiple third-party sources". If a number of obituaries are printed in different major newspapers, that would be another matter, though in such circumstances it would be extremely unusual for the subject not ever to have been mentioned in print while he was alive.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In a reputable, mainstream newspaper? I don't think so. Of course obituaries in proper newspapers are a third-party source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no other reliable sources can be found. In response to Necrothesp, being the director of the navy band does not automatically confer notability and no other leader of the US navy band has an article. Very unlikely to find any other reliable/scholarly sources about this individual or his work. -epicAdam(talk) 19:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "being the director of the navy band does not automatically confer notability": Well, that's a judgement call isn't it. As any WP editor commenting on an AfD should know, nothing is set in stone. "no other leader of the US navy band has an article": So what? Nobody had an article until somebody wrote one! That's how Wikipedia works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete - Changing !vote to Keep based on SarekOfVulcan and KenKeisel. Does not meet Notability (people) requirements. --Noleander (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It is always hard to fault Sarek's reasoning.  I disagree but can't fault him.  I would only note that, contrary to the statements below, none of the sources say that Mitchell was "commissioned" to write any of these marches; or that the Kennedys "selected" him to play at JFK's funeral.  As best I can tell, he played at the funeral because the Navy Band played for JFK (a Navy man), and Mitchell was leader of the Navy Band in 1963.  If folks think he's notable enough to keep, that's fine, but the decision should be based on the facts.  JohnInDC (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This fellow was the band leader for the United States Navy Band for 6 years. He was selected to compose the anthem of the District of Columbia. He was commissioned to compose the official marches of the United States Park Service, and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which were among the last official marches ever composed. He was selected by the Kennedy family to perform the dirge at John F. Kennedy's funeral. When he died in 2009 he was given a half page eulogy in The Washington Post. If he's good enough to receive that kind of recognition in the Washington Post he more than rates a Wikipedia article. As for references, people are always encouraged to add more, but it seems that the Washington Post did a pretty good job of listing all relevant information. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have just added additional references to this article supporting the accuracy of the information contained. Thus far I have not found one piece of writing that contests any of the information contained in the article. A review of the challenger's explanation states that he has not found any friends who remember the Distric of Columbia anthem. His friends lack of depth in their knowledge of D.C. area music is not a valid challenge in light of so much supporting references.- Ken keisel (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been no challenge to the content of the obituary, only to the question of the subject's notability. The requirement is that "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is independent of the subject being covered" (Third-party sources). The addition of record-liner notes (doubtless written either by LCDR Mitchell himself or by a bandsman under his command) may help to bolster statements found in the obituary, but they do nothing to establish notability, because this is not a third-party source. (Please read Notability (people) for a fuller explanation.) Ideal for establishing notability would be an article in an established reference authority, such as the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (but not the various Who's Who in Musics, which are essentially vanity publications because the entries are written by the subjects), or a book on the history of military music, published by a reputable publisher.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:IAR and WP:BURO and ask yourself whether deleting an article on the musical director of a major band would actually improve Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! This challenger has already questioned the accuracy of 'The Washington Post' as a reference. Pretty clear that this challenge is based on a personal bias against the source. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you are mistaken about that. Please read more carefully.  Also, assume good faith.  Accusations of bias tend not to advance civil discussion.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Other than a personal bias this challange doesn't make any sense. The fact that he was the band leader who conducted the music at John F. Kennedy's funeral is alone enough to warrant an inclusion in Wikipedia. Everyone living in D.C. during the 1940s-1960s saw him perform and conduct thousands of times on the Capital steps, not to mention his founding of the Washington D.C. Area Soloist's Festival - Ken keisel (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure about this one. Google seems to indicate that there may be coverage in the New York Times here and in the Chicago Tribune here, but these are in pay-per-view archives, so I can't tell if they are substantial or trivial in their coverage.  --Deskford (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Times article (Feb 21, 1966) is three paragraphs long. It notes that it is the first time for the Band at Carnegie Hall.  It describes the program, and then concludes,
 * I haven't got access to the Tribune article. JohnInDC (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Commment - well, more of a question. I've just noticed that probably 80-85% of the subject article was copied directly from the Washington Post obituary at .  Ordinarily I'd either request a speedy delete, or empty out the copyvio material; but I don't want to appear as though I'm subverting or circumventing the AfD process that I put in motion.  (I also have little interest in writing a completely new and clean version of an article that I don't think should be here in the first place.)  I guess I'm throwing the question to other editors - what needs to be done here, if anything; and if something does need to be done can someone who isn't a nominator please undertake it?  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wound up following the instructions at WP:copyvio which, given the extent of the problem, didn't seem to leave much room for doing nothing. Most of the page is blanked now, with a template noting the problem.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point I am doing what needs to be done and bringing JohnInDC to the attention of site Administrators. JohnInDC has demonstrated a personal bias against both the subject of the article (this is his second attempt to get the article deleted), the band he conducted (he has removed virtually all information posted about the band from the article Washington D.C.), and the music he composed (he has challenged the accuracy of a 'Washington Post' article that states the piece is the official march of Washington D.C.). That is more than enough to file a formal complaint against the user. I have checked the user's "Talk" page and note that it has been repeatably been deleted by JohnInDC. Apparently he has a long history of such derisive behaviour which has resulted in comments on his "Talk" page that he doesn't want anyone to see. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse other editors of bias. I would ask that you look at the WP:AGF guideline.  JohnInDC has blanked parts of the article because they appeared to have been copied from the Washington Post obituary.  This was the correct thing to do, as Wikipedia takes copyright matters very seriously.  And, since you mention it, JohnInDC's talk page is fully archived &mdash; what you are probably seeing is the times he transfers old discussions to the archive pages &mdash; but that is not relevant to the discussion here.  We should simply be trying to determine whether or not Anthony A. Mitchell can be demonstrated to have received sufficient independent coverage to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.  --Deskford (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, seems to just meet WP:MUSICBIO -- composed march for opening of Kennedy Center, released at least one album with the Navy Band and appeared on a later compilation. I'd make it stronger if I could find more references. (http://www.navyband.navy.mil/history_1960-1970.shtml is good, and I don't think it's been included in the article yet.)-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I had missed that, and was touched by the "In Memorium" section of the article. This adds greatly to the article. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That link was among the four I noted in my original posting - JohnInDC (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why are you still trying to find a way to delete the article? It seems pretty clear that this fellow made a very significant contribution to the musical history of Washington D.C. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because, as I said at the top, he does not appear to meet the notability requirements for people set forth at WP:BIO or WP:Composer. I don't know how I can say it more clearly.  JohnInDC (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Head of a significant musical organization is notable. The very nomination admits there are RSs.    DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Meets WP:MUSICBIO. Renaming of article settles the only real quibble I had left. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG as the head of significant music organization and the availability of reliable sources. There were articles about him when he took over the Navy Band, e.g. the Tri-City Herald and it appears to have been syndicated in various versions by AP   Note that the RCA Victor Album  is in The Billboard Book of Top 40 Albums which lists the best-selling popular albums between 1955 and 1995 . Off topic, but I must vent a bit here. How is it that anyone who's ever walked onto the pitch for a first-division football team is automatically notable while the conductor of one of the world's most important miltary bands for almost a decade, with a real (not paid-for) obituary in a major paper, has to jump through these kinds of hoops? OK vent over. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment +1. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  13:43, 28 July 2011
 * Comment. Apparently it's because more people write about football than military bands, which makes footballers (and other minor celebrities as opposed to people who have risen to the top in proper jobs) more important to the world. I agree, it's utterly ridiculous and it's probably time either 1) our notability policies and guidelines were revised, or 2) (and this is the one I favour) people realised that Wikipedia is about discussion and not rigid rules. Until a couple of years ago that's the way it used to work and it worked much better. It's only fairly recently I've seen "that's what the rules says so that's what we must do, no dissent allowed" arguments frequently used in AfDs. WP:IAR - if it improves the encyclopaedia, ignore all guidelines. People say this would lead to endless articles about real non-entities (i.e. people like most of us who genuinely aren't notable). I say it didn't then and it won't now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. As nominator I'm starting to feel a little heat here, and would only observe that if this nomination is really as far out of bounds as the foregoing are beginning to imply then 1) the policies and guidelines do need to be revised, or 2) made far more general and flexible in their application.  Detailed guidelines will invariably tempt editors to interpret and apply them; if that's ridiculous then do away with the details.  Also - maybe I just don't spend enough time hanging around reading AfDs - but what are they anyhow, other than a platform for discussion?  I certainly approach them with the attitude that I may learn something.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The criticism is directed more at the way the guidelines are increasingly interpreted (i.e. as concrete instructions rather than flexible guidelines) than at any individual. I was simply musing as to the recent increase in AfD opinions that tend to quote notability guidelines as a be all and end all without reference to WP:IAR, WP:BURO and WP:UCS. They're intended to be a rough guide, not a weapon to beat "errant" articles (and editors) round the head. Opinions that boil down to "he's not notable because the guidelines don't allow for him to be" are misguided and against the spirit of Wikipedia. That's not directed at any one individual but at a prevailing attitude. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I agree with the general musing.  Carry on!  JohnInDC (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And then there are the footballers who get tons and tons of news coverage, but because they don't meet the WP:NFOOTY guidelines, they get swarmed into oblivion... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Initially I had my doubts, based on the state of the article at the time of the nomination and my own failure to find much independent coverage, but subsequent improvements to the article and sources found by others have convinced me.  --Deskford (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How does one withdraw a nomination? Deskford's comments pretty well capture my thinking at this point.  JohnInDC (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think all you have to do is leave a note for the closing administrator to that effect under your original nomination at the top of this page. I don't think that will stop the AfD itself, though (three other people here !voted "delete"). Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My "delete" vote was conditioned on no further reliable sources being found. It looks like they have been, so I am convinced it is a keep.—Jerome Kohl (talk)
 * Comment If so, you need to strike through (using ) your "delete" at the top of the page to make that clear. Voceditenore (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My goodness, the protocol on these pages is complicated! Thanks for explaining this to a novice of only five years experience!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:06, 30 July 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.