Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ro 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) 00:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ro Hancock-Child

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject, a musician and author, does not appear to meet the notability criteria set forth at WP:MUSIC or WP:AUTHOR, or the more general criteria of WP:Notability (people). JohnInDC (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Search engine references to her, while numerous, yield no discernable reliable third party coverage but rather merely links back to her own website, Wikipedia & mirrors, social networking sites, or sites offering to sell one or another of the books she has published through her own company. Finally, the article appears to be largely the creation of the subject herself and by various SPA accounts, who might be friends or colleagues of the subject. (See this Talk page comment.) JohnInDC (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * NB this related AfD discussion: Articles for deletion/Michael Hancock-Child  JohnInDC (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete--Self promoting autobio without significant third party coverage.Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems to me to fail WP:BAND, although I'll admit this is not my specialty. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - don't see how the article passes Notability (people). Midlakewinter (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - self promoting autobiography and fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Sorry this is a bit long, but I want to present the evidence on which I based my decision. I don't enjoy !voting delete on classical musician articles. While this article has serious COI issues, that in itself is immaterial to the notability of the subject. The three commercial CDs listed are really only two. English Song is a compilation of Naxos recordings by many different artists and simply republishes 5 tracks from a  A Ballad Maker . Naxos/Marco Polo is a notable classical music label. Dinmore is not. Several more recordings had been listed, distributed not on the Chandos label itself but as downloads in the Chandos Artist Showcase. It's not the same thing, see . The only recording to have been reviewed was A Ballad Maker (in Gramophone and Fanfare) The Gramophone review did not mention her at all. I can find no reviews of her recitals in either mainstream or specialised  classical music press, and no evidence that she has ever performed in a major concert hall. Likewise  coverage of her as a composer is nil, even in specialised music journals. All her compositions appear to be self published apart from Leo which is one of  several choices on the Trinity Guildhall  music exam syllabus (but not a required piece). None of them appear to have been recorded or played in recitals by notable musicians. Barring some new evidence in reliable independent sources, I can't see this passing the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. The two very short books on Armstrong Gibbs and Madeleine Dring  (the latter self-published) drew virtually no critical or scholarly attention. What is available is already referenced. According to WorldCat, the Armstrong Gibbs book is held in only 11 libraries worldwide, the  Madeleine Dring in only 10.  Google books is not a perfect tool, but I can find only only three or four books in total that even list one of these books in the bibliography. Even allowing for the niche subjects, that's a pretty low citation rate and impact. Again, barring some last minute "finds", I can't see this passing the WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC criteria either. Voceditenore (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Even allowing for the appalling lack of coverage of classical music and musicians in mainstream publications, which may lower the bar considerably and permit us to find notability for persons covered only in specialty press and publications, there is no significant substantive independent coverage whatsoever in reliable secondary sources for this person. Fladrif (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet WP:BAND Johnclean184 (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music - Voceditenore (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete immediately and irrevocably. I wish this article about me, Ro Hancock-Child, to be removed from this 'encyclopaedia'. I was initially genuinely delighted that someone should consider me a candidate for inclusion in Wiki, but my recent witnessing of the savage treatment of this article, the hacking-about of the material by non-musicians, and the ignorance demonstrated by some Wiki editors of how the classical music world works, has saddened me tremendously.
 * The acknowledged (see above) 'appalling lack of coverage' of classical musicians in well-distributed published sources discriminates against us when being considered for Wiki. It seems that a pop musician on heroin who smashes his guitar once on stage and gets splashed all over the tabloids is 'notable', whereas I, and very many others like me, who are solidly and highly educated, intensely musical, and achieve consistently over many decades (in my case 35 years) are not as immediately visible, so we don't make your grade. However, we are undoubtedly far superior in terms of what we have given to the world.
 * Wiki articles such as mine urgently need to be assessed, not by amateur committee, but by specialists in the particular field, who have some basic idea of, for example, whether inclusion on an exam syllabus is 'notable' or not: you evidently have no appreciation of what I have achieved here, both as a woman and a living modern composer, getting an inclusion on a major syllabus like this, given the massive amount of competition that exists.
 * Having watched what has been happening over the past few weeks, I now consider any association with Wiki to be injurious to my reputation as a classical musician, and I feel tainted by the whole thing. Just because some guy in mid-America can't, in February 2011, quickly locate my work from, say, 1985, via electronic means, has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I have contributed substantially - and 'notably' - to British music, which classical musicians will assure you I have.
 * I leave you to your childish squabbling and debating. In my opinion it would be more valuable for you to address yourselves to something worthwhile such as world hunger, because there would be more far point to it than squandering your time considering whether or not you can write, in a supposed encyclopaedia, the incontrovertible fact that 'she has perfect pitch' (which I categorically DO).
 * Please DELETE this article on Ro Hancock-Child now. Thankyou.
 * Ro Hancock-Child, deeply saddened by what I have been reading. 11 Feb 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohancockchild (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not about finding your work and "assessing" it. Wikipedia does not work that way, as many of us have tried to explain to you. Wikipedia is not a primary source and does not publish "new" information on the article's subject or the unpublished opinions of anyone, including their colleagues, no matter how eminent those colleagues may be. The criteria for inclusion is that others have written about you and your work in published sources that are completely independent of you. They don't have to be in mainstream newspapers. Many of us have access to specialist music journals. We have looked and haven't been able to find anything. Non-notable in the Wikipedia sense does not mean that the person is not accomplished or does not have the respect of their colleagues. Conversely, having an article here is no badge of honour or personal validation. I really wish people would read those various guidlines and policies before they try to get articles about themselves into Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am resisting the idea of seeking a speedy delete now, figuring that the subject's wish to see an article removed is pretty much beside the point. That being said, the article was largely constructed by SPAs of questionable independence; and it's pretty clear which way the wind is blowing here in the AfD.  I'll leave this call up to folks who may have a better sense of how to proceed in light of the comments above.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – An admin could do an early close on this this as "delete", which I'd have no objection to. But it doesn't qualify for speedy delete G7. Leaving aside the multiple single purpose accounts, too many other editors have made substantial edits both to the article and the talk page, and the AfD decision needs to be recorded. This is not the first time this article was created and subsequently deleted. . Voceditenore (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - It is telling that Ms. Hancock-Child does not choose to post biographical details on her own incomplete webpages. As a full-time musician, I view this article merely as a summary that could be applied to thousands of others. It is neither more or less memorable or noteworthy than legions of others who maintain an income through music. The article describes a typically self-employed person, carrying out a combination of some paeripatetic music teaching in private practise, school teaching, occasional concert giving, composing, writing literary essays, and for Ms. Hancock Child; geneology and home based crafting hobbies! There seems to be almost no independent validation of her work in reviews, theater or concert hall listings. I strayed onto this discussion in an attempt to research Madelaine Dring's compositions, but find even then that Ms. Hancock-Child's webpage for Dring is now a dating site/blog? Without personal criticism of Ms. Hancock Child, it seems that this is a biography or possible autobiography which has no place in an encyclopedia and would be better referenced solely on Ms Hancock-Child's own webpages. Cyranosnose (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete article today, please, and Comment - Then Cyranosnose, you have little grasp of the musical genre in which I work (art-song) which is by nature an intimate thing and has no place on the operatic stage, nor in the theatre/theater: the majority of our concerts are (following longstanding tradition, see Schubert) deliberately designed for small audiences, to whom, and with whom, we talk as we go along. This is how song works, it's poles apart from Wagner (probably beloved of Voceditenore). Even though an event is top quality, small gatherings do not often attract journalists, and therefore no article appears in print; this is no reflection on the event, it's a business decision made by a magazine etc. Moreover, did you know that some of the articles and advertisements/features in glossy classical music magazines, on which you/Wiki seem to heavily rely, are actually paid for by the people who are in them ? (otherwise they would not be there) - surely this is blatant self-promotion if ever I saw it; I've never gone down this route myself.
 * I take great exception to your implied denigration of professional work that I do 'at home', as if it were inferior to work carried out in a rented hall. Monet worked in his own house, remember ?
 * Again I call for this article on me, Ro Hancock-Child, to be deleted. Too right, a Wiki article is no badge of honour: it is in fact a liability, and indeed a dangerous thing. My own 'badges of honour' are my fine and solid educational qualifications (it's very rare for women to do what I have done), and my long history of promotion of other musicians' and composers' work, lifting them on many occasions out of undeserved obscurity.
 * For your information, the universities local to me in the UK forbid their students to use Wiki for any research, neither may they refer to it in their written assignments, because Wiki is considered by UK academia to be unreliable, inaccurate, biased, and in many cases completely wrong. Please note what I say here.
 * By the way, Cyranosnose, Madeleine Dring's first name is spelt with an 'e' in 6th place, not an 'a', as you did; and 'geneology' [shd be geneAlogy' - genea = race] is completely wrong - much carelessness on your part, yet you probably consider yourself adequately literate to be able to go ahead and edit an article, maybe even one on me.
 * Please remove Ro Hancock-Child immediately from Wiki, and I will be advising all musical colleagues to try to ensure that no Wiki article on them ever appears, for I would not want them to be subjected to the same disrespect as I am suffering now.
 * Signed Ro Hancock-Child 12.2.2011 (and I always sign work with my real name, I never skulk behind 'clever' pseudonyms, as many of you do). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohancockchild (talk • contribs) 13:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment You are of course entitled to your opinions about how notable you are and to Wikipedia's sourcing and notability requirements. However, they are non-negotiable, and the framework in which we all have to work here, whether or not you personally find them congenial. Your personal attacks on other editors and what you wrongly presume to be their personal tastes, knowledge and backgrounds is inappropriate. Please refrain from doing this in future comments here. Voceditenore (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - (e/c) - There is a particular irony in chastising Wikipedia editors for their (presumed) ignorance of your field while at the same time, despite repeated entreaties, refusing to learn anything about Wikipedia and how *it* operates. The article will surely be deleted, but it will be deleted only in due course, per Wikipedia policies and procedures.  The deletion is nothing personal - really - and I'm sorry that you've taken it that way.
 * The article will probably disappear a week after I nominated it for deletion, give or take a day. Perhaps you should just check back around about the 17th or 18th and make sure it has happened.  There's not much to be gained by these exchanges in the meantime.  JohnInDC (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it is useless to note that a number of universities assign their students projects working on Wikipedia articles, that a number of academics are editors here, etc. Of course no student should use Wikipedia as a reference, but if any universities forbid their students to read Wikipedia articles looking for references those universities are foolish, as a)you can't stop students doing it, and b)many of our articles are very good sources for references. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 12 February 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.