Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tadd Russo

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. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tadd Russo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO and general notability despite extensive attempts by me and other editors to source it. There may also be COI since the creator and main editor has a similar username as the subject. It was a CSD for a while due to copyvio but the article was tidied and, though there is still a certain amount of copyvio left, it does not appear to be a CSD any more. A later PROD was contested then removed. Jubilee♫clipman 17:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but I can't find anything to satisfy notability criteria. None of the associated festivals or theatre companies seem notable, and the references don't add much. --Deskford (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the Edinburgh Fringe is indeed notable, but the performance of The Druid Tree in 2000 was a pretty minor event, it would seem (one of thousands at that event, of course). And in fact that was the best I could find that might even come close to establishing notability (the rest were minor festivals, school choirs, minor work for his employers the USAF Band) even the Ohio Music Education Association commission and the Kool and the Gang etc refs were never verified in my search. All I could find was confirmation that he exists, has been trained as a musician, is (?was) a Technical Sgt. in the USAF and has composed a few minor works. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have excluded the Edinburgh Fringe. The others all produced redlinks when I tried to wikilink them. --Deskford (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair to you, the Fringe is pretty eclectic and open to any old bod, so being played there means nothing anyway, of itself. Furthermore, as you point out on the talk page (which also gives more info on the sourcing and cleanup attempts) the creator, Russoerica (talk · contribs), might be the Erica Russo in this reference to a mezzo for whom Tadd Russo wrote a couple of works. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also never verified the other potential claim to notability, the Dallas Wind Symphony performance of one of his works. Then again, even that probably isn't enough anyway. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference for the Dallas Wind Symphony performance, but I don't think it helps much. --Deskford (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your assistance with this. Yes, I am his wife, but I am also a musicologist and thus have attempted to be as objective as possible in creating this article. Since I also wrote the original bio--thus having permission of the author--it's hard to self-edit beyond a certain point. I did not include any specific works for guest artists such as Kool and the Gang, Ronan Tynan, Sara Evans, Spirogyra, et al, because DOD policy prohibits such use beyond initial "name=dropping." OMEA also typically deletes conference programs from the website after the year in which they appeared, so I'd need to send a hard copy of a conference program to... the Internet? What other references might be helpful--beyond newspaper articles or actual books--in verifying notability? (Russoerica (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

For example, a recording of his organ works and some of his string works is set for 2010 release. (Russoerica (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your explantion. The article is relatively balanced, actually, though it reads rather like a CV. Perhaps you should chance adding the specific works: I am not aware of it being against our policy. Unless you mean that it is against an official-secrets-type law to go beyond name dropping? "Set for release" is not now I'm afraid. Perhaps we can try again when the CDs are released and The Washington Post and/or BBC Music magazine have reviewed them? I am glad we haven't frightened you off, anyway! Alice Parker could definately do with the "BRB" magic, as it were! Sourcing is a tricky beast sometimes, but the links I provided over at the talk page will set you off in the right direction. Given the calibre of the editing and sourcing experience of Deskford and Kleinzach, I doubt your husband's article stands much of a chance, this time... (WTS?) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, but I don't see the independent reviews necessary to demonstrate notability. --Klein zach 22:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try again in a couple of years on this one. Thanks for your help and consideration... you're a polite lot! (Russoerica (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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.