Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Zilincik

: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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

=[[Tony Zilincik]]=

:{{la|Tony Zilincik}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Tony Zilincik}})

Doesn't show how the subject meets the notability criteria set out at WP:MUSIC (contested prod). Jeremy (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep - I added some references and tidied up a bit. I think he meets the minimum requirements. Pkeets (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. I don't think the previous references were adequate (they were primarily sources by Zilincik himself, rather than sources by other people about him) and in some cases they said things that contradicted what more reliable sources said (for instance, Zilincik seems to have been calling himself a head of a department while his department's web site only lists him as an assistant professor and as head of an "area"). And if he was a tuba soloist for multiple symphonies, as his article alleged without sources, it wasn't a significant enough role to make it into published reviews of their concerts. I did find a couple of small newspaper stories that mention him nontrivially: one about a local tuba festival and one about a concert that included a work a friend of his in Arizona had commissioned. I don't think that's quite enough for WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability more substantial than this is required. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC).
  • Delete, unnotable. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) ([http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Exclusionism Exclusionistic] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism Immediatist] ) — 05:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:COMPOSERS requires that he appear at reasonable length in publications in his genre. Tuba is something of an off-beat genre and a search of the lit on it brings his name up fairly regularly, even if the mentions aren't especially relevant for this article. The level of coverage justifies the space for at least a start level article. BTW, his compositions are listed for sale at music press websites. Aren't these sufficient sources to list them in the article? Also, why should a citation be required for the schools he graduated from? These would have been verified on his employment application with Capital University where he's currently employed and where his biography is posted. Pkeets (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:COMPOSER #6 requires that he appear at reasonable length in standard reference books on his genre. What do you interpret his genre of composition to be, what are those standard reference books, and what do they say about him? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking through the music he has for sale, his primary genre seems to be tuba music, and I consider professional journals to be "standard reference books" as they are published in volumes. Here's a competition website verifying him as (former) director of the Ohio Brass Band: [http://www.4barsrest.com/articles/2009/1068b.asp], a statement now removed from the article. Pkeets (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If it meant journal articles it would have said so. And the content needs to be about Zilincik, not by him. Google books has exactly three hits for the combination of tuba and Zilincik: all are journals not books, one is by him, one is his name in the caption of a photo, and one is his name in a list of compositions. That doesn't look like "reasonable length" and it doesn't look like "standard reference books" to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to argue about it; it's just my opinion that professional journals and newsletters are good quality references for what's going on in a particular genre. For example, they provide invaluable information on what was going on in the 1800s. Here's commercial credit verification of a soloist gig with the Brass Band of Colombus, a statement now removed from the article [http://www.brassbandofcolumbus.org/BBC_store/index.htm]. Check the CD tracklists--they've misspelled his name. He's also listed here on B-flat tuba [http://www.brassbandofcolumbus.org/news/newsletter_files/09FEB.pdf]. I added some of this information back in with sources. Pkeets (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • We're up to 16 sources now. Pkeets (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per —David Eppstein. It's about quality not quantity of references. These are almost all faculty/band potted bios, event listings, or simple band member listings and are either trivial or not indendent of the subject + some very brief mentions in a local paper. Have his compositions been premiered by notable/leading ensembles, in notable venues? Has he been the principal tuba of a major orchestra? Are there any reviews of his work? None that I can see. Is he a full tenured professor, whose work is frequently cited? Has he won any major awards. Does he have multiple recordings on notable label? Nope. I know this is a niche area but compare to Steven Mead. Voceditenore (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Woefully insufficient WP:RS. Almost every reference is web flotsam (university listings, pdf files, etc). While there is one mention in his local newspaper, that is very obviously trivial. It now seems clear that there are no real sources to demonstrate notability. Article is WP:SPA-created, so this may be little more than a vanity page. Uncontroversial policy-based delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC).
  • See Wikipedia:RS for the status of journal articles as reliable sources. Pkeets (talk) 06:46, 23 January 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.