Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William B. Roberts

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William B. Roberts[edit]

One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 02:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 04:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 04:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 04:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain The question here is whether he is notable for his work in church music, or as a teacher of it. I'm not prepared to say either way at the moment.DGG (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete. The music may make him notable, but all his published works are from non-notable tiny/specialist publishers, and the committee he was on seems also non-notable. The music definatly got printed, but garnered little or no notice outside his own church. As a musician, i cdon't think he meets WP:MUSIC, as an acedemic doesn't meet WP:PROF, and overall doesn't meet WP:BIO. Weak because someone more knowledgable about church music may have greater insight.Yobmod (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: self-published composer, no significant 3rd party sources WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. In addition to the points made by Yobmod, independent news coverage seems to be nonexistent. --Eric Yurken (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2009 (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.