Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hancock-Child

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hancock-Child

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

My searching doesn't turn up enough to meet our criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't appear to be any reliable independent sources to confirm notability criteria at WP:Music or more generally at WP:N.4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have to agree. I can't see how this would pass any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. What sources are there were added by me. (It was originally proposed for deletion as an unreferenced BLP. [1]) The references now there were all I could find, including searching under Nik Hancock-Child, Nicholas Hancock, etc. (the names he performed under in the past). There is one commercial recording for Marco Polo (a sub-label of Naxos), which was reviewed in Gramophone although, no comment was made on him in the review and what appears to a review of the same recording in Fanfare (Google books snippet) which does appear to mention him briefly. [2] The second Naxos recording is simply a compilation of previous recordings by many singers and included five of the tracks on the Marco Polo one. It is not a new or separate recording. All the rest are self-published and none of them have been reviewed. Apart from that, zero press or journal coverage. And no reviews (professional or otherwise) of any of his recitals. None of them appear to have been in major venues. His wife, Ro Hancock-Child is marginally more notable, but even there the supporting references and claims are pretty thin. Voceditenore (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the cogently-voiced reasoning of the tenor. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree, fails notability. JohnInDC (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not notable per Wikipedia criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The quote cited at the subject's own website, which is the first Google hit, says it all: "one of the undiscovered voices of the 20th century". If he's undiscovered - and the complete lack of significant substantive independent coverage in reliable secondary sources would seem to confirm the accuracy of that statement - he is definitely not notable. Fladrif (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO spectacularly. ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2011 (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.