Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mem Shannon

: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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

=[[Mem Shannon]]=

:{{la|Mem Shannon}} ([{{fullurl:Mem Shannon|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mem Shannon}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:MUSICIAN. He may be signed on to a record company, but he has had no chart places, awards or significant coverage. Another reason why this article is being deleted is a lot of other pages that are more notable then this are being PRODded, and this is not in the same league. Koshoes (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep The musician is being covered in reliable sources. See [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/72792917.html?dids=72792917:72792917&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=May+11%2C+2001&author=Geoffrey+Himes+Special+to+the+Tribune&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=A+philosopher+finds+the+best+of+two+grooves+Mem+Shannon+plays+the+blues+in+the+heart+of+jazz+country&pqatl=google], [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-613742.html], [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/11614084.xml?dids=11614084:11614084&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=May+02%2C+1997&author=Bill+Dahl.&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=Music.+Album+reviews.&pqatl=google], [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SL&p_theme=sl&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=10A3A59A32BD9666&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM]. I know those are subscription sources, but it shows Shannon is (or was) being significantly covered. Tim meh ! 22:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Put these references on the page if you are so amazingly sure. Koshoes (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
That's not my job or my interest. I'm discussing your nomination of this article for deletion, not how to improve the article. It should be kept, although it does need work, preferably to be done by the main contributor, Bluesedit. Tim meh ! 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. The sources provided above show that the subject is notable. We are all volunteers here, so the people responsible for editing the article are those who want it to be edited, who would seem, from the above comments, to include Koshoes. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

: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.