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, with protection against recreation. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hambly[edit]

Non notable musical student. Anon IP accounts (99.231.53.181, 99.232.138.1 etc.) have repeatedly removed notices questioning bio-notability etc. Kleinzach (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reads promotional, notability not sufficiently established (singing roles is not notability in itself, what counts is who you sing with). Delete. Moreschi (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Google general web search produces nothing apart from his management company page and Wikpedia and its various mirrors. Searches on Google News (archives for all dates), Google Scholar, Google Books, and Highbeam Research all fail to produce anything. I also followed the links given in the Wikipedia article with the following results:

According to the Humber College web site he is a faculty member on the certificate of post-secondary education program but not a "Professor" as stated in the article.
There is no such thing as "The Career Development Award" from the Canada Council for the Arts. They give carreer development grants for emerging artists to pursue further training etc.
He is mentioned briefly but favourably along with the other solists in a review of Mozart's C Minor Mass performed by Symphony Nova Scotia (Halifax Chonicle Herald April 3, 2004). I checked their archives. Nothing else.

According to the Wikipedia article: Hambly has been declared as "one of Canada’s outstanding soloists." However it doesn't say by whom. It also lists a lot of opera performances, some of them in major roles. But it doesn't say where these performances took place (which prominent professional opera company or festival). If the principle contributors to the article could provide that information and it could be verified by independent sources. I might consider changing my mind. Voceditenore (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the above. --Folantin (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems likely to be notable someday, but that day isn't now. Delete without prejudice against recreation in the future when he becomes more notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hopefully, they really will wait until he's notable. The article has already been deleted three times. This will make the fourth. Voceditenore (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GreenJoe 13:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no bar to recreation if his career generates reliable sources for an article or if the unsourced quote "one of Canada’s outstanding soloists" can be attributed to a notable individual or an article in a major publication. and protect as suggested below. If someone wants to recreate the article with sources they can propose it on the talk page. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it technically possible to bar recreation for, say, three years? Last time it was deleted on 28 September and then recreated on 10 November (2007). -- Kleinzach (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Non-existent articles can now be protected. I agree this should be done. Moreschi (talk) 14:00, 7 March 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.