Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Stocken

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.

Result was Keep. - Caknuck 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Stocken

Vanity page. This person's main claim to fame is booing a respected and eminent composer (Birtwistle). Seneca_2007 18:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems notable enough. Has at least two major published works, several recordings and seems an important contemporary musician. Quite a well written article to which the subject has contributed fairly little, apart from a POV removing rewrite 12 months ago. –MDCollins (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From the history of the page Frederick Stocken himself drafted the majority of the current article so it represents his opinion of his own work. He deleted biographical information critical of his work without explaining why. I can't see any evidence on the page that he has published any major works. Of the two published works described one is an instruction manual which Frederick Stocken describes as popular but there is no other evidence. The issue is not if he is notable but whether this is a vanity page written by him and his friends. Paul Cadman 18:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would much prefer this page to be deleted if it is only going to refer to bad reviews of my music. There are plenty of other good reviews of my pieces that could appear on this site, though alas, not many of them are on the internet. These are reviews in mainstream national publications, so if you would like to have them, I could send them. However, if I were to add those to the site, then it really would be a vanity page! I did not choose to have an article about me in widipedia, and simply expanded the information to include the factual stuff that is already there. The user who constantly wishes to link the information to views that are heavily one-sided of my work clearly has his own agenda. Frederick Stocken.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep per he was published. i don't feel that one major edit by the subject justifies ridding wiki of the article. the_undertow ^talk 02:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, F.S., if there are other reviews please either add them to this page or add them to the article yourself and tell us. They do not have to be online, but if print only it would be informative to include a short key quotation. DGG 04:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep while I do agree with the nom that it seems a bit like a vanity page, this guy still seems pretty notable and as the_undertow said, he was published. GeorgeMoney (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the request of the person who made the last-but-one comment, here are some press quotes about my music for what they are worth - most comments critics write, both good and bad, are usually just journalistic gunk anyway:

“At last a young English composer has chosen to write accessible, beautiful music which is unashamedly passionate and melodic.” The Evening Standard

“…it is music which makes me believe that a new Sibelius or a new Elgar has been born.” The Spectator

“… one of the most promising talents of his generation….it is refreshing to find a composer who is producing music which is clear, profound, free-flowing and superbly composed.” The Sunday Telegraph.

“Stocken is forging his own language.” Nottingham Evening Post.

“Stocken’s work will also prove popular with players for he has written very much a showpiece for the violin.” The Strad.

“The Agnus Dei of his Mass was beautiful and quite striking with ladders of woodwind rising against the sound of the solo singers, soon to be shattered by the sound of war (as in, but not like, Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis.)” The Tablet.

“Stocken has managed to create something like a ‘symphony of the city’ that is suitable for our time, which makes you breathless and sometimes invites you to rest.” Wetzlauer Neue Zeitung

“Frederick Stocken has written a surprisingly melodic score especially for this entertaining spectacle, reminiscent of the late romantics.” Giessener Anzeiger.

Although by and large I try to stay out of musical controversy now, it is true that I was fairly vocal in the mid 1990s with criticisms about the 'new music establishment.' I think a lot of the points I made way back then were, and still are, valid, but for many years I have just wanted to get on with my own composition, and other musical activities, and that whole period in my life is (and seems)a long time ago. Frankly, being in the front-line - and firing line - proved to be a very harrowing experience on a personal and creative level. Since then I have been very fortunate to have had a number of commissions and performances. However, in the age of the internet, my past as an 'enfant terrible' - or whatever you like to call it - keeps coming back to haunt me, and there are quite a few people, who still seem to take considerable exception to me. What's especially annoying about this in the case of my being included in Wikipedia is that, even if you decide to keep this article about me, and just to make it a factual page - which is what I attempted to make it - what is there to stop someone coming along and changing it back to what is currently there, ie making it an article that only contains references to bad reviews of my work? There is someone out there who seems intent on making it like this, and has been fairly persistent. Frederick Stocken

Keep: Seems notable enough and the article isn't badly written. Speedything 08:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This fellow is garnering regular reviews in the mainstream media, which by the standards of contemporary orchestral composers is a very strong degree of notability. Whether the links provided are disparaging or not is irrelevant to this disussion. -- P L E A T H E R _talk 18:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man is clearly a notable modern British composer, if such a thing isn't a contradiction in terms, and anyone who booed Harrison Birtwistle certainly knows something about music. His music has been reviewed in a wide variety of newspapers and the fact that he edited this article to make it more accurate is no reason to delete it. Nick mallory 01:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me for interjecting again, but IF this article is kept on Wikipedia - and I know it may not - please could one of the editors ensure that there is something to counter-balance the one very negative opinion of my work that has been inserted as a link. That this might be possible has already been suggested by someone earlier in this discussion, but I would really hate to see the article kept, and only have this real stinker of a review listed. I think that the very first article about me on Wikipedia, which, needless to say, I had absolutely nothing to do with, didn't have this link. This Wikipedia article is the first thing that comes up about me in Google at the moment and I have already had several remarks in the real world from people who have read the Wiki article and have sympathised about the bad reception of my music. However, this is only a very one-sided representation of the critical response to my music. As I said originally, if there cannot be any counterbalance to this negative review cited, I would much rather not have any article about me at all. Do I have any rights in this matter? Frederick Stocken

Keep as per Nick mallory and Pleather. That Stocken's work has attracted significant attention is a fact. As for the "Guardian" link , Berlioz got terrifying critiques too. "Molti nemici, molto onore". Stammer 18:08, 30 April 2007 (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.