Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoff Collinson

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 no consensus. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Collinson

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

fails WP:MUSICBIO. he may have been Australian opera principal horn but that in itself is not enough. lacks signficant coverage [1]. LibStar (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm honestly on the fence on this one. Doesn't meet the MUSICBIO criteria, but then it doesn't really look as though that guideline has been developed with musicians such as Collinson in mind. I have a strong feeling that he should be notable as the principal horn of the Australian opera. The problem is that he seems to have been most notable in the '90s and, in Australia, that decade is very poorly covered in online sources. Looking at The Age archives, I found a few more hits that gnews (see here), though nothing that could be considered really significant. Jenks24 (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Passes WP:NMUSIC. Found sources via Gnews [2] that do provide significant coverage for this person, therefore he passes WP:N. Auseplot (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

coverage needs to be indepth as well. sources mainly confirm his existence. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Again, Gnews hits in my opinion should not be used as justification for deletion or keep. When I googled his name I found 133 000 that on the other hand is an great indicator that this person has made an impression on the world of his profession. Passes WP:N per overall coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:GOOGLEHITS regarding your flawed reasoning. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable musician lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. The hits listed above are "trivial" coverage. WP:MUSIC may not be written with this in mind, however, WP:GNG and the requirements that all articles be supported with reliable sources are. To the person that indicated the "person has made an impression on the world of his profession", if you used quotes before and after the name you would notice the number drops to only 455. Of those 455, none appear to be of any substance. Also where does it say that the number of GHIts indicates that a "person has made an impression on the world of his profession." All this means is that someone with that name has been indexed by Google. That person could have been a murder, a thief, or a president. Per WP:GOOGLEHITS, "the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number." I would suggest you review the quality of hits before making such sweeping statements. ttonyb (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh / Neutral This is reliable and more than trivial coverage, the other instances I've seen seem more trivial to me. On one hand, a hair short of WP:GNG, on the other hand, harmless enough. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:23, 22 April 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.