270:
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.
678:
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.
360:
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!
208:
article has been challenged prior, with regard to its worthiness on
Knowledge, 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 Knowledge, and or have very little experience at writing articles, etc.
344:. 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.
677:
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
Knowledge that have gone un-challenged. Ones field, publications, etc, may vary. In the field of church
462:
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
426:
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.
710:
obscure - there are five Google hits, two of which are to your mentions of it on
Knowledge 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
714:
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
705:
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
359:
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
207:
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
155:
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
693:
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
269:
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
445:. 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. --
702:. 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.
698:: 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:
662:- 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.
488:: 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? --
249:
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
140:, 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.
715:
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
240:
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
599:. 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.
427:
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.
837:
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.
188:
706:
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,
618:
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
734:
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!
129:
254:: 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. --
756:
96:
91:
100:
759:
48:. 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
83:
753:
694:
difficult to study using online resources. However, some simple Google searches produce, for instance, choral composer/arranger
17:
711:
at the Choral
Journal website. If those are reviews written by Vozzella, they're not really references showing his notability.
531:
388:" been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician . . . and reliable."
302:
224:
172:
383:
156:
users. Not everyting that is done is on purpose, just don't know what to do. Help, and patience, please? Thank you!
604:
861:
817:
770:
543:
36:
846:
822:
803:
775:
743:
728:
687:
671:
654:
633:
608:
587:
565:
548:
515:
501:
472:
454:
436:
420:
403:
369:
353:
333:
306:
263:
228:
200:
176:
149:
65:
860:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
137:
87:
650:
575:
349:
511:
468:
331:
667:
600:
79:
71:
810:
787:
763:
536:
290:
212:
196:
160:
622:
found, then the article can be deleted, and right now, that is the case. Hopefully someone from the
797:
735:
679:
495:
446:
428:
397:
361:
294:
279:
271:
216:
164:
61:
739:
683:
450:
432:
416:
365:
345:
298:
283:
275:
220:
168:
390:
If there are bona fide independent reviews of the subject's work, I'd be happy to reconsider. --
724:
583:
561:
556:
Just FYI, the user in question started editing in early
November 2008. Hardly a "new user". --
507:
484:
464:
324:
259:
145:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
842:
663:
53:
192:
49:
808:
Oops. Sorry. Struck earlier userfy vote based upon continued good faith wish to improve.
463:
thing all around. Until then there is no reason to single this article out for deletion.
792:
626:
can come and fix it: the article has potential, but again, only if sources are found.
534:
and let it be brought back when it gets cleaned up. No need to discourage new editors.
490:
392:
57:
716:
642:
623:
412:
720:
699:
579:
557:
255:
251:
141:
117:
838:
695:
646:
481:
Is everyone who performs at the (Washington) White House automatically notable?
236:
First of all, the AfD process is not a "condemnation", as you put it. It is a
719:, complete with tries to advertise the subject by adding commercial links. --
317:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
790:: You've already given us your opinion once before (see above 17 April). --
854:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
506:
Yes, that is why I take part in AfD and other discussions.
124:
113:
109:
105:
322:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
189:list of Living people-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
864:). No further edits should be made to this page.
386:. The key criteria here is that the subject has
8:
574:This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing
761:and author's wish to contiue improvement.
136:Non-notable performer and arranger. Only
532:User:MusicTex/sandbox/Thomas R. Vozzella
52:violations. I am, obviously, open to a
187:: This debate has been included in the
7:
24:
645:based on the sources provided.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
286:) 17:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
1:
278:) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
384:Knowledge:Notability (music)
881:
847:13:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
823:02:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
804:23:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
776:18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
744:13:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
729:08:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
688:01:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
672:16:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
655:15:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
634:14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
609:12:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
588:11:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
566:08:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
549:04:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
516:04:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
502:03:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
473:02:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
455:22:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
437:16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
421:15:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
404:10:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
370:03:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
354:02:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
334:00:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
307:16:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
264:09:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
243:how the article is written
229:04:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
201:00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
66:13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
177:22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
150:19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
857:Please do not modify it.
411:per Jashiin, Kleinzach.
32:Please do not modify it.
624:Article Rescue Squadron
378:. Based on the article
616:Abstain/very weak keep
578:). It is listed now.
380:in its present state
54:userfication request
245:, but because the
80:Thomas R. Vozzella
72:Thomas R. Vozzella
56:for further work
44:The result was
845:
336:
310:
293:comment added by
232:
215:comment added by
203:
180:
163:comment added by
872:
859:
841:
813:
800:
795:
766:
641:, seems to meet
632:
629:
601:Fol de rol troll
539:
498:
493:
400:
395:
327:
321:
319:
309:
287:
252:reliable sources
231:
209:
183:
179:
157:
127:
121:
103:
34:
880:
879:
875:
874:
873:
871:
870:
869:
868:
862:deletion review
855:
811:
798:
793:
788:MichaelQSchmidt
764:
630:
627:
537:
496:
491:
398:
393:
325:
315:
288:
210:
158:
138:264 Google hits
123:
94:
78:
75:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
878:
876:
867:
866:
850:
849:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
779:
778:
732:
731:
712:
703:
675:
674:
657:
636:
612:
611:
593:
592:
591:
590:
569:
568:
553:
552:
528:Keep or Userfy
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
476:
475:
457:
424:
423:
406:
357:
356:
338:
337:
320:
312:
267:
266:
205:
204:
181:
134:
133:
74:
69:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
877:
865:
863:
858:
852:
851:
848:
844:
840:
836:
833:Lean towards
832:
831:
824:
821:
820:
819:
815:
814:
807:
806:
805:
802:
801:
796:
789:
786:
783:
782:
781:
780:
777:
774:
773:
772:
768:
767:
760:
757:
754:
751:
748:
747:
746:
745:
741:
737:
730:
726:
722:
718:
713:
709:
704:
701:
697:
692:
691:
690:
689:
685:
681:
673:
669:
665:
661:
658:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
637:
635:
625:
621:
617:
614:
613:
610:
606:
602:
598:
595:
594:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
572:
571:
570:
567:
563:
559:
555:
554:
551:
550:
547:
546:
545:
541:
540:
533:
529:
525:
524:
517:
513:
509:
505:
504:
503:
500:
499:
494:
487:
486:
480:
479:
478:
477:
474:
470:
466:
461:
458:
456:
452:
448:
444:
441:
440:
439:
438:
434:
430:
422:
418:
414:
410:
407:
405:
402:
401:
396:
389:
385:
382:in line with
381:
377:
374:
373:
372:
371:
367:
363:
355:
351:
347:
346:Eddie.willers
343:
340:
339:
335:
332:
329:
328:
318:
314:
313:
311:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
285:
281:
277:
273:
265:
261:
257:
253:
248:
244:
239:
235:
234:
233:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
154:
153:
152:
151:
147:
143:
139:
131:
126:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
856:
853:
834:
818:
816:
809:
791:
784:
771:
769:
762:
749:
733:
707:
700:Alice Parker
676:
659:
638:
619:
615:
596:
544:
542:
535:
527:
526:
508:Steve Dufour
489:
485:Steve Dufour
482:
465:Steve Dufour
459:
442:
425:
408:
391:
387:
379:
375:
358:
341:
326:Juliancolton
323:
316:
268:
246:
242:
237:
206:
184:
135:
45:
43:
31:
28:
696:John Rutter
664:John Carter
660:Weak delete
289:—Preceding
211:—Preceding
159:—Preceding
238:discussion
193:Erwin85Bot
342:Weak Keep
58:Fritzpoll
812:Schmidt,
765:Schmidt,
736:MusicTex
680:MusicTex
538:Schmidt,
447:Aepoutre
429:MusicTex
413:Eusebeus
362:MusicTex
303:contribs
295:MusicTex
291:unsigned
280:MusicTex
272:MusicTex
225:contribs
217:MusicTex
213:unsigned
173:contribs
165:MusicTex
161:unsigned
130:View log
50:WP:MUSIC
721:Jashiin
580:DumbBOT
558:Jashiin
443:Abstain
256:Jashiin
247:subject
142:Jashiin
97:protect
92:history
839:Hiding
835:Delete
785:Again?
717:WP:COI
708:really
647:Stifle
643:WP:BIO
631:Earwig
576:step 3
409:Delete
376:Delete
125:delete
101:delete
46:delete
794:Klein
492:Klein
394:Klein
128:) – (
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
799:zach
752:per
750:keep
740:talk
725:talk
684:talk
668:talk
651:talk
639:Keep
605:talk
597:Keep
584:talk
562:talk
512:talk
497:zach
469:talk
460:Keep
451:talk
433:talk
417:talk
399:zach
366:talk
350:talk
299:talk
284:talk
276:talk
260:talk
221:talk
197:talk
191:. --
185:Note
169:talk
146:talk
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
62:talk
628:The
620:not
530:to
483:To
758:,
755:,
742:)
727:)
686:)
670:)
653:)
607:)
586:)
564:)
514:)
471:)
453:)
435:)
419:)
368:)
352:)
330:|
305:)
301:•
262:)
227:)
223:•
199:)
175:)
171:•
148:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
64:)
843:T
738:(
723:(
682:(
666:(
649:(
603:(
582:(
560:(
510:(
467:(
449:(
431:(
415:(
364:(
348:(
297:(
282:(
274:(
258:(
219:(
195:(
167:(
144:(
132:)
122:(
120:)
82:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.