Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas R. Vozzella


 * 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. Arguments for retention focus overly on giving the benefit of the doubt to the editor and do not fully address the issues of the stated WP:MUSIC violations. I am, obviously, open to a userfication request for further work Fritzpoll (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thomas R. Vozzella

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

Non-notable performer and arranger. Only 264 Google hits, and apparently most are websites which sell his arrangements. The editor who created the page only contributed to this article, plus a few composer biographies where he tried adding links to said commercial websites. Jashiin (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to fix my mistakes on this article. I am doing this for a friend of a friend.  Some said to put external links, so I linked his compositions to composers of the compositions.  Now the article is up for deletion.  Some newbies could use more help and patience from experienced users.  Not everyting that is done is on purpose, just don't know what to do.  Help, and patience, please?  Thank you!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicTex (talk • contribs) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It was not the authors’ intent to break Wiki rules. It was purely an attempt to do what another suggested. Everyone wants to be helpful, but sometimes the assumption is that there is some overt intent to get away with something, etc. that needs to be exposed. Well it was a pure mistake. This article has been challenged prior, with regard to its worthiness on Wikipedia, and was retained. This was the authors first attempt at an article, a mistake or two were made, and it is being put up for deletion again. A little help would be nice, rather than condemnation. This author has done every suggestion, or at least tried, although wrong, without suggestions to fix is a pretty difficult when you are new to Wikipedia, and or have very little experience at writing articles, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicTex (talk • contribs) 04:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, the AfD process is not a "condemnation", as you put it. It is a discussion on whether to keep the article or not, and the result of this discussion still may be to keep it, depending on the consensus. Second, you didn't make any "mistakes". This discussion is here not because of how the article is written, but because the subject of the article may not be notable enough for an encyclopedia. So there is no need to appeal for help and patience, noone is judging you. We're merely trying to determine the subject's notability. So the only way you can help here is by citing more reliable sources: published reviews of Vozzella's work, articles on him from other encyclopedias, references to his works in publications by others, recordings of his music, etc. --Jashiin (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional material was added in support of this article. Just as a note: Just because submissions cannot be proven via the web, does not denote their non-existence. Many of the Journal references, etc. are not available on the web. Old fashion library research is required. All of these references, etc. are sited. In order to prove the existence of compositions links to these sites are required. They have been removed as they have been said to be commercial. Some of this is a two edged sword; wrong if you do, wrong if you don't. This person is highly involved in the choral conducting field, because of his work in the church; visibility on the web is minimal (but in terms of those in the church music field 200+ hits on Google is great). Having choirs perform and ACDA and MENC events is not a small accomplishment. Having choral compositions published is also a huge accomplishment in the choral field. Dr. Vozzella, is notable, and his achievements supersede many in the field. If he were an orchestral conductor and did not work in the church, his visibility would be increased ten-fold. I do hope you will re-consider removing Dr. Vozzella for deletion, in consideration of the above. Also, this author is open to corrections, suggestions, etc. and has, to his detriment followed the suggestions of others, as can be seen in the history of this article.MusicTex (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC) MusicTex (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicTex (talk • contribs) 16:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. I would prefer to give the article's author the benefit of the doubt in his claim that web-based content relating to the article's subject, as a means of validating notability, is minimal. However, I would point out that listing the subject's 'private label' recordings and private commissions do not establish any claim. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The author of this article has added additional references, and deleted compositions that have no web based references. The published compositions had links previously. However, it was suggested that these links were too commercial in nature. Thusly they have been removed. The recordings have been up-dated to include the distributors of the recordings. If this is not acceptable, they will be removed. Each thing that this author does is to follow the suggestions of the many people that make them. There might be too much help coming, as everyone has their own ideas and thoughts. Probably after all the suggested changes, additions etc. are made, the article may revert to the one originally published. That article did not have this much attention, and/or suggestions. Again, this author is making all the changes, etc. that are suggested. I respectively ask that it be left, and allowed to develop. Thank you! MusicTex (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Based on the article in its present state in line with Notability (music). The key criteria here is that the subject has " been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician . . . and reliable." If there are bona fide independent reviews of the subject's work, I'd be happy to reconsider. -- Klein zach  10:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jashiin, Kleinzach. Eusebeus (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Said compositions are published by firms that specialize in choral music. The articles and published reviews are in the Choral Journal. News paper articles, where available, have been link to support claims. Maybe looking at the items and fixing things would be helpful. Isn’t anyone free to edit. Well edit, and check the sources. Just because you haven’t heard of them, doesn’t constitute their validity or lack thereof. There seems to be a push to delete without true discourse. MusicTex (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain. I'm rather concerned by the original author's recent behaviour, and I'm inclined to recommend delete, as well, but I'm going to spend a bit of energy cleaning it up until it's inevitably done away with (yes, I really do expect its deletion). I must be going soft or something. --Aepoutre (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This person seems to be notable in his field, having performed in the White House, etc. If someone wants to form a "gang" to delete all articles that do not really meet WP's strict notability standards please let me know.  I will be glad to join.  Soon 90% of WP will be gone and that will be a great thing all around. Until then there is no reason to single this article out for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is everyone who performs at the (Washington) White House automatically notable? To Steve Dufour: all publications need to decide what they should, or shouldn't be covering. That's unavoidable. What we are trying to do here is apply rules that are fair and even-handed, and lead to objective decisions. Do you want to take part in the process? -- Klein zach  03:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why I take part in AfD and other discussions.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or Userfy to User:MusicTex/sandbox/Thomas R. Vozzella and let it be brought back when it gets cleaned up. No need to discourage new editors.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, the user in question started editing in early November 2008. Hardly a "new user". --Jashiin (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. If there are paper based sources, then surely these could be listed. I'm inclined to believe that that Vozzella has minor notability and that a poor article is not reason alone for deletion. Fol de rol troll (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain/very weak keep so that the article can be improved. Per above comments, I feel that the article's subject could potentially be notable, as long as references are found. If references are not found, then the article can be deleted, and right now, that is the case. Hopefully someone from the Article Rescue Squadron can come and fix it: the article has potential, but again, only if sources are found. The Earwig (User 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to meet WP:BIO based on the sources provided. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - The "My West Texas" article, which seems to be one of the few truly independent of the subject, if not the only one, looks to me as if it might qualify as a trivial mention. If that is true, then there is a serious question of the subject's notability. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me share, once again, that in the choral field, the number of compositions he has published, journal articles and reviews, as well as major performance venues is more than many of the bios in Wikipedia that have gone un-challenged. Ones field, publications, etc, may vary. In the field of church music, Dr. Vozzella is a leader in the field. Choral conductors and church musicians, as stated above are not as high profile as orchestral conductors. However, on the merits of having 29 years experience, and his accomplishments, he far exceeds in the field of church music, which seems to be his primary field of practice. In choral music, a single choral composition that is published is equal to one recording (1,000’s of copies, and used by 1,000’s of people). He performs weekly on radio, television, and live web casts, and pod casts. And, again, many who challenge this article are relying solely on web references. There are numerous references that are hardbound that will be added. However, that takes a bit more time than just surfing the web, as has much of his research and published works taken. He is the sole authority on the music from T. S. Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral. All of these achievements together are more than enough notability in the field of choral and church music. MusicTex (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You've repeatedly stated that choral composers, arrangers and conductors are "not as high profile as orchestral conductors", that "in the church music field 200+ hits on Google is great", etc.; and from your words it seems that church and choral music are fields shunned by most, obscure, and difficult to study using online resources. However, some simple Google searches produce, for instance, choral composer/arranger John Rutter: 346,000 Google hits, a great number of compositions and arrangements, recordings produced by various artists other than Rutter himself, published compositions, reviews.. anything you want. Or here's another choral composer/arranger/conductor, less prominent: Alice Parker. There are 82,000 Google hits for her, and again, massive lists of compositions, recordings, reviews, etc. And both Rutter and Parker are living persons. Seems to me that contemporary choral music isn't that obscure, and that 200+ hits are not particularly great.
 * According to you, plenty of paper references exist that "will be added", but when will they be? Your article is 6 months old, plenty of time to add some. Suppose you didn't know you should provide references. But this AfD is 11 days old, so you've known about the references problem for more than a week, AND you have an opportunity to ask Dr. Vozzella personally - but the article is still not referenced properly. The "Worship Arts Journal" seems to be something really, really obscure - there are five Google hits, two of which are to your mentions of it on Wikipedia and CPDL. And what are the Choral Journal articles? Does "James Jordan review" stand for a review of Jordan's work by Vozzella, or a review of Vozzella's work by Jordan? None of the issues cited are available at the Choral Journal website. If those are reviews written by Vozzella, they're not really references showing his notability.
 * To recapitulate, your main points are that (1) choral composers are generally obscure, and (2) plenty of references for Dr. Vozzella exist, only not available online. However, (1) is easily disproven with Google, as I have demonstrated. As for (2), we have only your word for it. The way things are now, it looks like Dr. Vozzella has composed two choral pieces (and produced a dozen arrangements) and released some self-published records of own works. And the entire situation looks like a textbook example of WP:COI, complete with tries to advertise the subject by adding commercial links. --Jashiin (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone’s assistance. If it is still here when I get to a library, I will work on it, if not, it will be gone. I tried, oh well, lesson learned. Thanks! MusicTex (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * keep per, , and author's wish to contiue improvement.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again? MichaelQSchmidt: You've already given us your opinion once before (see above 17 April). -- Klein zach  23:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry. Struck earlier userfy vote based upon continued good faith wish to improve.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Lean towards Delete here, doesn't quite tick all the boxes and seems to rely too heavily on one source I'd call questionable. I think we're into areas of wondering if the article is a little self-serving. Hiding T 13:51, 21 April 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.