Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Ciampa


 * 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. &mdash;harej (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Leonardo Ciampa

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Vanity article for a non-notable composer/pianist/organist. Only independently verifiable facts about him are a few minor performances in the Boston area. Article has been tagged as needing citations several times over its five year history. Three self-published books do not qualify for notability. Grover cleveland (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: Mr Ciampa appears to be following this AfD discussion on his blog and has invited his blog readers to take part in this discussion. Grover cleveland (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If he has that many readers, that would indicate notability, no? BonGens (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no indication that Ciampa's blog has many readers. As for his Wikipedia article this page (http://stats.grok.se/en/200908/Leonardo_Ciampa) indicates the article is receiving very few hits aside from editors.  Compare to Vladimir Horowitz who's been dead for 20 years: (http://stats.grok.se/en/200908/Vladimir_Horowitz)THD3 (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then there's no problem of Ciampa's mention of the AfD on his blog, I guess. 66.30.117.55 (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has claimed that there is a problem with the mention - it was simply noted as a relevant piece of information.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr. Cleveland is incorrect on many points. "Only independently verifiable facts about him are a few minor performances in the Boston area."  Untrue.  Most of the facts were easily verifiable on amazon.com, bostonglobe.com, as well as leonardociampa.com and faultbook.blogspot.com.  "a few minor performances in the Boston area."  Untrue.  Major performances have occurred at Sanders Theatre, Harvard University, and important cathedrals in Europe including the Stefansdom in Vienna.  All of these facts are easily verifiable on the web.  To throw a "citation" tag after practically every sentence, without researching any of it, is a clear case of vandalism. 68.162.214.17 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC).
 * leonardociampa.com and faultbook.blogspot.com are personal sites run by Mr Ciampa. "Consortium Internationale Compositorum", cited as a source and publisher for some of Mr Ciampa's works, "was founded in 2008 by Leonardo Ciampa and Andrea Amici.".  Ciampa's books are all self-published.  Wikipedia notabiliity requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."  Nearly all the claims about Mr Ciampa in the article are either unsourced or originate, in one way or another, from Mr Ciampa himself.  The exceptions are some Boston Globe articles that afford Mr Ciampa only minor mentions that do not meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability.  Grover cleveland (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "...some Boston Globe articles that afford Mr Ciampa only minor mentions ..." Untrue.  This was a full-length article and documented an important premiere of an orchestral work in an important hall: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=BG&p_theme=bg&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F674A084B9BEB7D&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM BonGens (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This article, which I have just paid $5 to view in the cause of Wikipedia, is a human-interest piece mostly about Ciampa's Italian-American background that says very little about the music and doesn't review the performance.  The performance was scheduled to take place at the Strand Theater, whose mission, according to its website, "is to serve as a cultural and educational resource to artists and audiences regardless of race or cultural background, age, ability, gender, economic level, or sexual orientation."    Grover cleveland (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the 'Globe,' there were two performances, one at the Strand and the other at Sanders Theatre, Harvard University (an important hall). The Pro Arte Orchestra is a well-known, all-professional orchestra, by the way. 64.61.60.146 (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. A vanity article which is primarily being maintained by an anon editor who is probably the article subject.  Previous editors GiovaneScuola2006 and LorenzoPerosi1898 (both blocked as a sockpuppets) were most likely the subject as well.  Grover cleveland's requests for citation were entirely reasonable and the hostile response by 68.162.214.17 was uncalled for.  Further 68.162.214.17's use of the Ciampa's own website and blog do not meet the criteria for WP:Verifiability.  Finally, Sander's Theater at Harvard is hardly a major concert venue.  If everyone who played there and/or self-published a few books had an article in Wikipedia, the article load would increase ridiculously.THD3 (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Sander's Theater at Harvard is hardly a major concert venue." Excuse me?! 64.61.60.146 (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep.I completely agree that Grover Cleveland's adding "Citation" to every other sentence constitutes vandalism and ill will in this instance. I don't think there is basis for doubt that Mr. Ciampa is a well-known performer and composer in America and Europe who has played everywhere that the websites say that he has.  (By the way, the correct spelling is Stephansdom, not Stefansdom.)  It seems probable that User:THD3 and User:Grover cleveland are sock puppets who consistently use the same turns of phrase, edit on the same pages, etc. BonGens (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * BonGens, if you're going to accuse me of being sockpuppets with User:Grover cleveland, you should have the guts to back it up via an administrator. Otherwise, you should delete the claim.THD3 (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ciampa is a famous musician.  If someone wants to claim that he's lied about places he's played and things he's done, that's ludicrous. Are the Pro Arte Chamber Orchestra and Lavazza Chamber Ensemble also lying that he's performed with them? 66.30.117.55 (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And another user with almost no edit history mysteriously shows up!THD3 (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * — 66.30.117.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Claims for notability are not supported by reliable external sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. LK (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note. I am recusing myself from all further discussion of this article and removing it from my watch list.  In the past 24 hours, I have been accused of sockpuppetry, had my real name and physical location listed, and Leonardo Ciampa has tried to contact me personally.  This is not worth my time (especially considering that the article receives so little traffic) and it's definitely not worth the aggravation and lost sleep. Life is too short.THD3 (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep given the six interwiki links (de:Leonardo Ciampa, es:Leonardo Ciampa, fr:Leonardo Ciampa, it:Leonardo Ciampa, la:Lionhardus Ciampa, pt:Leonardo Ciampa). They can't all be wrong. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never seen this argument in an AfD before. A few points:
 * Notability requires coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Interwiki links are not reliable sources, and they often are not independent of each other.  None of the interwiki links, as far as I can tell, cites any sources not in the English Wikipedia article, and none gives any reason for Ciampa to be notable beyond what is in the English article.
 * If a user is capable of creating a vanity articles in English, he is equally capable of creating vanity articles in other languages, especially given the easy availability of translation tools on the internet.
 * Since English is the biggest Wikipedia and has the largest coverage of many areas, many other Wikipedias proceed by copying and translating articles from the English Wikipedia. I have noticed this in the field of classical music (where I am an active editor).
 * Other language Wikipedias may have different criteria for inclusion from the English Wikipedia.  So, even if Latin Wikipedia, say, is "not wrong" in having an article on Ciampa, it doesn't mean that English Wikipedia needs one.
 * In sum, I really don't think the existence or nonexistence of interwiki articles is a valid argument for (or against) an AfD. Grover cleveland (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They can all be wrong if they were all created and maintained by the same person/persons. You haven't looked at them, have you?  Look at their edit histories.  Notice how it is the same accounts editing across many of them.  Three of them were all started by the same IP address.  GiovaneScuola2006 has edited four out of the six, all of which were created on the same day, three out of those four within minutes of one another.  The only reason that xe didn't edit the final two (la: and pt:) is that they are translations.  And even then, la:Usor:LionhardusCiampa (and la:Usor:BonGens &mdash; a unified account and thus the same as User:BonGens here) edited the la: article.  It's not hard to guess who "LionhardusCiampa" is. Your rationale holds no water at all, upon investigation.  I suggest trying a different one.  &#9786; Incidentally: Whilst checking all this out, I've found the evidence that shows pretty conclusively that User:BonGens is both a sockpuppet and Ciampa xyrself.  So whilst your rationale didn't hold water, it was at least useful for showing the places to find the sockpuppetry evidence. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a composer and author, Ciampa is notable enough. High profile organist gigs cement notability. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources that he is notable as composer, author or organist, could you add those to the article? Then I would be happy to withdraw the AfD.  As of now, I don't see any sources for this.  Cheers, Grover cleveland (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You apparently think the Boston Globe article is deficient. I think it suffices. The whole article is about Ciampa and his Sicilian suite, including the punning title which reads "His Suite Smells Of Success", yet you complain of it being "only minor mentions" unworthy of Wikipedia. I disagree—it is enough to establish notability. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just don't see how it meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:COMPOSER. Grover cleveland (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - It's irrelevant, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER, along with all other topic-specific notability guidelines, are inclusive not exclusive. In other words, if a person meets the requirements at WP:COMPOSER then they are considered notable even though they may not meet WP:N. Those guidelines are intended to allow Wikipedia to include subjects that could be considered notable despite failing the requirements. But if a subject meets the general requirements then it doesn't matter if they meet any of the specific requirements. Leonardo Ciampa has been given "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" and thus meets WP:N regardless of anything else. To give another example, Bill Clinton plays the saxophone but probably wouldn't pass the requirements at WP:MUSICBIO, is he then not notable? --  At am a chat 18:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just added two links to Ciampa-written articles in The American Organist, the voice of the American Guild of Organists. That guild is hard to penetrate online, but it appears that Ciampa is an active member, writing articles, and playing at least one concert for the Guild in 1990. This industry-focused activity increases his notability. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep.  I recently heard Leonardo play his own works which were inventive and musical.  I also heard him improvise.  He invited the audience to submit a hymn for his improvisation. All was quiet and so I volunteered “Lift High The Cross” for he tune.  He did a masterful improvisation, starting with a minor variation on a melodic fragment of the tune, progressing through several other variations and ending with a very busy fugue.  His technic is outstanding and his composing style is mature.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.23.178 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * — 72.173.23.178 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong keep. The malicious campaign by Grover Cleveland is highly unfortunate, and unhealthy for Wiki. Leonardo Ciampa is an extremely well-known performer and composer.  (He has been reviewed numerous times in the Globe, by the way -- Richard Buell, Ellen Pfeiffer, et al.) 64.61.60.146 (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * — 64.61.60.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please, No personal attacks. Grover cleveland (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Towards Grover cleveland or towards Leonardo Ciampa? BonGens (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only personal attacks here are towards Grover cleveland, who has been described as conducting a "malicious campaign" and, especially, THD3 whose physical identity and location have been published as part of a campaign of online and offline harrassment, successfully driving him away from this discussion.
 * I've opined that Mr. Ciampa is not notable by Wikipedia standards of notability. That's not a personal attack -- it's an essential part of the Wikipedia process for deciding what articles are and are not included in the encyclopedia.  Nowhere have I said anything about Ciampa as a person outside of his qualifications to have his own Wikipedia article.  I have not, for example, described him as "malicious".
 * The No personal attacks policy applies primarily to other Wikipedia editors, not to the world at large. Is Mr. Ciampa taking part in this discussion, or editing his own article, anonymously?  If he is, then that violates Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy and possibly Autobiography, and he should stop doing so, and confine his edits to topics in which he does not have a personal stake. Note especially from the latter page: If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later and If you create an autobiography you must have no promotional intent and must be willing to accept it being neutralized if it is not neutral, or even deleted if it comes to that. Grover cleveland (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of edits on this page by Grover cleveland. I call that a campaign. RoverRexSpot (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Other people call it discussion, which is of course what this page is all about. Uncle G (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Grover cleveland's anti-Ciampa campaign is disgusting. The AfD is baseless. RoverRexSpot (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Grover cleveland's behavior is deplorable. There is nothing in Mr. Ciampa's successful career to doubt.76.24.30.120 (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete nn musician. Complete lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Though I am impressed with the band of single purpose accounts he's managed to rouse up to make bad faith attacks on the nominator. Resolute 04:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. More citations are always welcome, but at present, WP:N/WP:MUSIC is not nearly established.  (also, the partisanship of the Keepers is creeping me out.  try not to take this personally.) Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with both Resolute and Andrew Gradman. For "creepiness," consider the volume and virulence of Mr. Cleveland's commentary on this page.  RoverRexSpot (talk) 06:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of the nominator is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and a complete failure to assume good faith. The truth is, if you can't bring up policy reasons to support your argument, the closing admin is highly likely to simply dismiss your position. Resolute 13:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Despite his own self-promotion and the misbehavior of his meatpuppet army here, and despite the poor quality of most of the sources in the article, the 2002-10-03 Globe article is clearly nontrivial third-party coverage of the type required by WP:RS, as is a review of one of his concerts in the Globe on 1996-09-06 ("Marciano shows star quality in US debut", unfortunately behind a paywall). So he (barely) seems to meet WP:MUSIC #1, and if the international performances can be sourced he would also meet #4. However, if this is kept then some sort of sanction (perhaps involving a user conduct RFC) seems warranted to keep him away from his article so that it can be maintained more neutrally: WP:N is not optional. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for being an "internationally-acclaimed organist" as per an article about him in the The News Leader . Also per this interview about his writings, and this article in the Boston Globe which tells his life story as well as the other thirty odd articles pulled up by Google News that mention him. Icewedge (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It's worth being aware that all three books by this person were published by AuthorHouse, which is described as a Self-publishing company.  Relevant to your consideration of Notability. JD Caselaw (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not news. Grover cleveland has mentioned this already twice, THD3 also mentioned it. More importantly, where have these publications been used to establish the subject's notability? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One local (U.S.) newspaper's assessment of what is or isn't "internationally notable" is a ludicrously slender piece of evidence for something like that being true. --Calton | Talk 15:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per independent sourcing, noted above by David Eppstein. (And delete editor for anyone who asserted that Sanders Theater is not a notable venue. :-) ) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets Notability with non trivial articles in the News Leader and the Globe. Should also meet WP:MUSIC's international tour standard, with the News Leader's statement: "Ciampa has made seven European tours encompassing Italy, Austria and Germany. He is particularly admired in Italy, where he has played in numerous international festivals.", but that's just extra. --GRuban (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article(s) in the Globe seem to be fairly significant, but the article in the News Leader is substantially (although not entirely) a copy & paste from Ciampa's website. I question how reliable this particular article is as a source. Andrew Jameson (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So they wrote a fawning article. That happens. If some different source were to write an article questioning some of the laudatory statements, we could start adding "alleged" or something to them in our article. But until then, we have to go with the fact that no one seems to be questioning what they said. Anyway, that's an issue with how our article is written, not with whether we should have an article at all. It shows that a newspaper in another state cared enough about Leonardo Ciampa to devote a fair bit of column space to him, which is what Notability is about. It's enough for that. --GRuban (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Reprinted press release" would appear to be the actual argument, not "fawning article" as you would try to spin it. --Calton | Talk 15:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject of article fails to meet standards for inclusion laid out in WP:MUSIC. L0b0t (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Gruban's analysis. Arguably meets WP:MUSIC although I'd like to see more evidence for that. Icewedge also makes a good catalog of sources. We should make our decision independently of Ciampa's behavior or the rude behavior of his apparent fans. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep All the people complaining that he doesn't meet WP:MUSIC are missing the point. He meets WP:N thanks to the significant coverage by the Boston Globe and other media. It doesn't matter if his musical achievements consist of playing a kazoo in the second grade, if he meets the general notability requirements then he is notable. --  At am a chat 18:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete With all due respect to Mr. Ciampa, whom I am sure is a excellent composer/pianist/organist, Wikipedia establishes notability requirements and the references in the article do not appear to clearly meet those requirements. The Newsleader source is marked as an advertisement and should be disregarded. The October 2007 Boston Globe reference is the definition of trivial, listing his upcoming performance as an activity alongside the Rising Star Quilters Guild's quilt show. It seems that the "His Suite Smells of Success" article is the only non-trivial coverage and that one piece doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:N as far as I can read for free. David Eppstein also includes the 1996 review, but I'm inclined to take that as trivial, since Mr Ciampa is not the subject of the article based on the title. Even if it were non-trivial, it would be arguable whether two articles qualify as multiple, IMO, and the overall over-promotion of the other sources would bias me toward arguing that it does not. Can someone who has spent the money to read these two articles comment on whether either one meets WP:MUSIC #4 ("Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.") and describe the scope of the 1996 review? Celestra (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The News Leader source is not "marked as an advertisement", it's got the words "ADVERTISEMENT" on each side as delimiters for two blocks of ads, which blocks happen to be empty. Compare it to, for example, or where the placeholder is actually carrying ads. --GRuban (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right about that, but I don't think that detail changes the overall nature of the piece. The piece reads like an event announcement or press release and it lacks a specific byline. I would still consider that to be trivial coverage, and not overly reliable for details about the subject. Celestra (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, the bulk of that Newsleader piece is word for word from what the subject wrote on his bio page at www.musicamultimedia.net, which would be consistent with it being an announcement or press release reprinted in that paper. Celestra (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - currently we have 10 references of which, breaking them down... the Newsleader is an advert that simply repeats the unverified claims of "internationally-acclaimed" and "one of the most gifted and versatile musicians of his generation" which is pretty high praise so I'd expect to see some pretty substantial critical review other than local rags. The Consortium site I'm afraid is not independent ("Leonardo Ciampa and Andrea Amici, CIC Founding Directors"), the Boston.com local news like all local news would advertise the opening of an envelope (this is very important for promotion but it's hardly discerning) - its purpose is to promote an event not be critical of the artists or the work. The concertonet.com links are self published, the encyclopedia.com are teasers for his own work. Maybe the market he works in is niche but nothing pops up that allows us to have an independent authority as to his skills. After all we (i.e. wikipedia editors) cannot judge the works but must let others judge for us. I find a lot of promotion but little that is judgemental and that is what is worrying. Also, though probably as notable as ghits, I'm having trouble googling for a torrent. In the music business if no one is ripping your music then you are very new or very very niche. He's not new, so its niche. ps: actually I love church organ music which being a secular humanist (aka to Americans I guess that means I'm an atheist) is kind of a odd dichotomy but hey ho. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ...I don't think claiming you can't casually pirate someone's music is a reason to claim non-notability. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * yes it is valid because we have so little else. We're scraping the barrel here. Given I'm having trouble finding an actual critical review then, like our use of ghits, it does help establish how widely known the person is. A google search which has the person's blog, (their wikipedia article, and forks), paid-for directories (e.g. www.concertartist.info) their myspace, then obviously ghits isn't going to help so other ways of establishing notability are needed. In music you try torrents; the point is that it should jump out who says he is "acclaimed" and "gifted". Ttiotsw (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia.com links are there because the American Guild of Organists doesn't have a searchable archive of past issues. Those links aren't there as "teasers for his own work"—I put them in and I don't know Ciampa from Adam. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But they are his own work that you are linking to via Encyclopedia.com. The American Guild of Organists establishes that he is an organist but as it is a trade group paid in part by subscriptions from the members so it is not independent of the organists. They establish he is an organist but not notability in that field. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The guild does not let non-notable organists use their journal to dispense advice on how to improvise. The fact that Ciampa's submission was either sought or accepted establishes notability within the organization. There are many members who do not author articles in the journal. Binksternet (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability within the organisation may be grounds for inclusion in that trade publication but isn't grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Concertonet link is not self-published by Ciampa. RoverRexSpot (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A good point - the though is more a fan site that is insufficiently distanced from the musicians. It does a great job of advising events but this doesn't establish the notability for those that they interview. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to self and others. I was checking around and I fixed a broken weblink on Pro_Arte_Chamber_Orchestra_of_Boston and noticed the currently listed conductor is now emeritus (retired) but then I saw Gisèle Ben-Dor has/had conducted for the PACO (notice she is a redlink here) and on her own page she indicates that "is described by the Los Angeles Times as "a star on the rise.a ferocious talent." "Ben-Dor casts her spell," the Boston Globe  reported, "a tremendous musician, expert technician, charismatic performer." which is fine praise BUT if you look at the reviews  then she kindly links to who says this and when. It is brilliant - it makes our life so easy and THAT is how notability is established because someone else says 'x' and we can identify who says that. All Ciampa needs is a press page whereby he links or references who says he is what he says he is and then this AFD is moot. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The PACO is obviously interesting because I did find an letter by Ciampa regarding a reviewer called Ellen Pfeifer in which Ciampa pulled the race card in which he says of his "...shock of reading Ellen Pfeifer's review, which was ethnically clueless on two levels (Living/Arts, Oct. 14).". Bizarrely enough Ellen Pfeifer's review could help establish notability though it doesn't support the descriptions we have of ciampa's work. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC) (amended by me to fix spelling of Ciampa from Ciampi !the senator!) Ttiotsw (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I recall reading a Sunday spread in the Boston Globe, about half a page, with various letters to the editor regarding Pfeiffer's review and the ethnicity question. It was a Sunday Globe, probably the Sunday after the premiere.  There had been much talk about Ciampa's Suite Siciliana being the first major "Sicilian" classical work.  Pfeiffer's review caused ire in the Italian-American community, many of whom wrote letters to the Globe ... and Pfeiffer responded ... and from that point on, Pfeiffer was not asked to review one piece of Italian music, not even opera.  You will not find one Pfeiffer review in the Boston Globe after October, '02, in which there is so much as one Italian work on the program. It was a "notable" episode.  Respectfully, I don't know what some of the editors here want.  Commissions by major musical institutions, premieres in major halls, reviews in major newspapers, articles in magazines, blogs that are popular enough to elicit many responses here ... What more do some of these Wiki editors require?  Anyone for whom the New York Times does not say, "The greatest musician of the age," must be deleted?  That's a lot of deleting. BonGens (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit other people's comments. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is that references seem to wander back to the subject or have insufficient independence from the subject. If there has been extensive touring then there will be newspaper records of this, if there have been CDs published then there will be reviews (having the CDs published by a label that the subject is a founder isn't independent). Looking at other artists web sites then thee is no end of praise BUT they specify WHO SAYS THIS. With Ciampa's web site we see "particularly admired in Italy" - OK great BUT hey *please* a link to La Stampa, Corriere della Sera etc please even if it is regional and we see "acknowledged as one of the most gifted and versatile musicians of his generation" - OK great, we're not the critics, so WHO SAYS THIS ?. On the issue of Ellen Pfeifer as a critic it seems that she moved jobs and is now the Public Relations manager at the NEC - New England Conservatory after 3 decades at the Globe, the Herald, and the Phoenix  its not surprising that she never reviewed much else - she moved jobs ! I don't care if people want to not use a critical review. It just means we're left with less so making this AFD that much easier. Ttiotsw (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, just that they have actual notability and actual impact, rather than wildly inflated puffery and recycled press releases. --Calton | Talk 15:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wildly inflated -- even vanity -- biography of a distinctly minor composer of, at best, local repute. Using claims of "internally notability" on mention in a local newspaper -- a story of somewhat suspect origins -- is an extraordinarily slender reed to hang justifications on. The various SPAs vociferously arguing EVERY SINGLE POINT don't help the impression of an organized promotional campaign. --Calton | Talk 15:12, 15 August 2009 (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.