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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Collins[edit]

Declined speedy. Article created by single-use account. Only references are to subject's website and publisher's website. Notability not proven. Thetrick (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This discussion has been notified to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. - Voceditenore (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Could find no information on this Mr. Collins. In addition, when trying the reference links on the articles page: one is not operational and on the other one you need a password.

~~Weak keep~~ Delete with no prejudice for recreation if sources can be found later to establish notability I fixed the links and cleaned up the article. I suspect the creator had a conflict of interest. Nevertheless, he is quite a well-known translator and musicologist specialising in early music. Given his area, you won't find much in the press. But he has a reasonable profile as author, translator, and musician. Observe the search results Google Scholar and Google Books Voceditenore (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I do appreciate your efforts in fixing the links. However, the first is a personal website of Mr. Collins and the second only thanks him briefly for research and never mentions him again. I’m sorry, though these websites allude to Mr. Collins talent, they do not prove Notabilty, other than to a select group of individual, which in and of itself does not bestow Notabilty, as the criteria here at Wikipedia calls for, with regards to Mr. Collins. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I wasn't basing the weak keep on the links in the current article. I was basing it on his published work and on others' citations of his published work as per the two Google searches above. But admittedly it's very borderline. Voceditenore (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL , I have enough problems with English, just get by in my German and know enough French to be slapped. I am going to let my opinion stand. However, will be swayed by a good argument. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This seems to be making three different, somewhat muddled claims to notability: as a musician, as an academic (musicologist), and as a translator. Clearly doesn't make the grade on the first, per WP:MUSIC nor on the second and third, as per WP:ACADEMIC. Nor does it seem any degree of article cleanup would change matters--the extremely small volume of published work is more indicative of an avocation than a profession. -- P L E A T H E R _talk 15:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On the whole, I think you're probably right. He has translated quite a few notable books on music, and a prolific number of liner notes for classical albums, e.g. these. But, I suppose it just shows he's good at his job. The publications under his own authorship are pretty thin on the ground and there doesn't seem to be anyone else who's written about him. Voceditenore (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2008 (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.