Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Shelley (musician)

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Shelley (musician)

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

The lead of the biography is well written, giving out all the claims of notability, but my biggest concern is that none of his albums have hit the charts yet, which this fails WP:MUSICBIO. Minima © (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO Whiteguru (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: the lack of chart hits is of no real concern here because he clearly meets WP:GNG (and thus WP:MUSICBIO #1). Just look at the slew of sources which have written about him compiled on his website[1], which include many mainstream newspapers in britian. I also easily found more profile news articles, [2], [3]. The article needs improvement but not deletion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by User:Milowent. This bio passes GNG now, but could use more information. Since his personal webpage provides online sources some of which come from RS, room for expansion. BusterD (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 18:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been relisted? After Milowent's intervention the GNG is surely more than met.—S Marshall T/C 21:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough of the sources Milowent points to are verifiable. Satisfies WP:N. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:11, 28 July 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.