Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Dvoskin


 * 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. The head count is close (still a majority in favour of deletion), but the keep arguments largely fail to respond to the nomination. WP:TNT is not universally agreed-upon, but it is at least a valid reason to consider deletion. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Larry Dvoskin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

American music business person. He's maybe notable, maybe not, but even if he is, one wouldn't know it from this refbombed piece of puffery that's basically indistinguishable from a CV. This needs a dose of WP:TNT and a rewrite from scratch by somebody who isn't in it for the money. (The article's creator is inactive since 2015 and their editing pattern resembles that of somebody creating promo articles for hire.) Also, there's this odd business at AN (permalink), which fits the pattern.  Sandstein  20:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   Sandstein   20:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT and the apparent bribery attempt linked above. Stuff like this needs to be nipped in the bud, in no uncertain terms.  Mini  apolis  22:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional, not notable, and not to mention the bribery attempt. The article has clearly been refbombed with a large number of unreliable sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete we are not a PR agency. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 01:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not a paid editor at all, I tend to pay attention to legacy musicians' pages because they are often neglected and I found Larry Dvoskin through noticing that Al Jardine's (founding member of the Beach Boys) page was very out of date. Larry is currently his producer so I updated his page to match and then felt obligated to add things as I found them on google to support that Mr. Jardine is working with a producer that is significant. I was told in the past by a wikipedia editor when I did a page for a very accomplished recording engineer that just the fact he was nominated for a grammy makes him notable- and I think Larry has several nominations. When I started editing for wiki over ten years ago I was told that it was important to have as many sources as possible that mentioned the person, which may be why I did what you referred to as "refbomb". I've done more editing since covid after a hiatus and I realize there is more discussion about how the source describes the person rather than that a source exists. I would be willing to rewrite with your guidance as I do feel it would be a mistake to take the page down. Yes, Larry is working with mostly legacy artists but they are still doing good work and deserve to be represented as properly on wiki as the newer artists, which I would think includes defining their collaborators. As far as the bribery, do you have proof that it was Larry himself and not the work of an internet-savvy assistant? It seems odd that he would have the time or concern.  vixhenry  (talk)
 * Can you explain why the article said that he is a professor when he is not? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He did teach songwriting at NYU as I remember a few people saying they took his class when my daughter went there and I considered auditing it myself. Knowing that, if I saw it written somewhere that he was a professor I wouldn't have questioned it or been inclined to check the NYU roster to see if he was listed as an actual tenured professor with that title. If the wiki rules state one must be a current tenured professor (not adjunct or associate) in order to write the title I missed it. Not every institution lists all their teachers past and present. vixhenry  (talk)
 * I did look into the NYU roster link and while Mr. Dvoskin is not now listed he may have been teaching there back when the link was first posted. I found a couple of links that list him as an adjunct professor in the past. I will add/fix and as I volunteered earlier, I will edit the article for tone and double check if the links actually support the statements. I am unfamiliar with this articles for deletion process. Do I re-submit after the edits? I will be able to do them within a few days. vixhenry  (talk)
 * You edit during AFD discussion. You are also able to !vote, see: DISCUSSAFD. If you feel that you have significantly changed article, you can cite HEY. Djflem (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify Wikipedia should not engage in guilty before being proven innocent or personalities when per: CONRED:
 * If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.
 * If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject...[to ensure} readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.
 * It appears there is a volunteer willing to work on article to address concerns of nomination NOT based on notability concerns or other Deletion policy. It would be unwise to TNT the basis of article and start from scratch since there are clearly usable references. Djflem (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and thank you . I changed the NYU link to one that supports the text and modified the text to match. I noticed that some links I had put up under TV as well as Tech no longer supported the text (news of Mr. Dvoskin's involvement had been on the linked pages originally and now I couldn't find anything). I removed these statements and links. I did not change the page significantly because it seems like the rest of the text was supported by the links. vixhenry  (talk)
 * My problem, even after the removal of some puffery, is still that the article is structured like a CV (a chronological list of professional accomplishments) and not like an encyclopedia article that neutrally describes this person's impact on the music business. That's why I'm still in favor of deletion.  Sandstein   07:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If the chronological format is the problem we will have to rewrite such influential record producers las Rik Rubin, Dr. Dre, Rob Fraboni, and Martin GLover (Youth) because their pages are also written chronologically. I might possibly not understand what you mean because in my observation the chronological order, like a CV, is very common on music pages. vixhenry  (talk)
 * Chronological format is not a Deletion policy, Deletion is not cleanup, and format is SURMOUNTABLE. Djflem (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But writing a CV and pretending it is an encyclopedia article is a reason for deletion, see WP:PROMO. A notable person will have things written about them, including unflattering things, that are not a bullet list of career accomplishments.  Sandstein   20:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there evidence that the original writer intended to write a CV and pretend its an article? Perhaps the original writer was like me (the most recent updater), trying to find the right neutral tone but maybe keeping it too dry. To many people, just reading facts of whom Mr. Dvoskin worked with and what projects he worked on that are in the public domain would make his impact on the music industry self-explanatory. Anything else could be considered an opinion, which is why I personally refrained from making the article sound like a review of his work. Is it a new requirement for notability that a person have unflattering things written about them? vixhenry  (talk)
 * Keep and clarify. I am no expert but it seems to me that there is more than enough information to work with here. I would allow users to clean up the language and simplify the many sources here until it is up to snuff. I see no reason to go right to deletion. Thanks. Iochone  (talk)
 * Keep satisfies GNG.Djflem (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What would have to happen next for the deletion process to be resolved and possibly the tag removed from the page? vixhenry  (talk)
 * CLOSEAFD.Djflem (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This article looks greatly improved. If there is anything that needs to happen for the tag removed from the page, perhaps list them so others could address/clean it up? Thanks. Iochone  (talk)
 * That discussion is better had @ Talk:Larry Dvoskin, which is the place to hash out article improvements. Djflem (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. No prejudice against recreation by a different editor willing to tackle the subject anew following policies. The bribery/coi issues here in this case take precedence over an article rescue. Best to delete the history entirely and start over.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2021 (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.