Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter King (organist)

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. m.o.p 06:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter King (organist)[edit]

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

I don't believe that the director of music at a church is notable enough to warrant an article. References are questionable - self published. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply not notable. Current references (see nom and article) are insufficient. Probably a nice guy, good musician, just not established as notable enough for a stand alone Wikipedia entry. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. References are questionable, originator is virtually WP:SPA. Probably fails WP:GNG. But -- might yet find sanctuary in WP:MUSICBIO, the more directly relevant guideline. My recent experience with the Sedra Bistodeau AfD suggests that people voting on a MUSICBIO don't always go through the whole checklist (on either the Keep or the Delete side). King's website bios[1][2] suggest that there might be enough press on him to clear the bar, though perhaps only just barely. I'll write him directly, maybe he can turn up some verifiable sources. For now, I reserve judgment. Yakushima (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From clues on Peter King's website, I tracked down this a review in a seemingly reputable source by a seemingly reputable reviewer.[3]. ~~Not so much focus on King, though.~~ Actually a fairly laudatory review -- the reviewer makes detailed comparisons to other work, but keeps coming back to King's interpretation of the pieces on the disc. Need more to meet WP:MUSICBIO, though, I think.Yakushima (talk) 14:11, 10 February 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.