Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Winston Morris

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 keep. John254 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. Winston Morris[edit]

Non-notable professor. Corvus cornix_talk 06:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd like to see some sources to back up the assertions, but notability in music with the tuba ensemble is asserted in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Provided the author can back up claims of notability, this seems a valid stub-class article. In a previous discussion, the author mentioned that the subject is mentioned in the article Tuba. --carelesshx _talk 06:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep legit source establishes notability. --Brewcrewer 06:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 08:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The PROF standards dont apply directly for performers and composers and visual artists -- they need to be judged by the standards of their professional field--as is the case in actual university settings. Given the performances and recordings, he'd seem to qualify. DGG (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, qualifies for notability standards. RFerreira 08:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you play tuba or euphonium in the United States, you know Winston Morris's name, for two reasons: 1) he founded the first university tuba-euphonium ensemble, one of the first ensembles of its kind anywhere; and 2) he was the source of tons of the early tuba-euphonium ensemble literature, either because he arranged it himself or because he commissioned for his ensemble. Without R. Winston Morris, neither the tuba-euphonium ensemble nor its literature would exist today. --NetherlandishYankee (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2007 (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.