Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keane's worldwide popularity

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 per WP:SNOW. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keane's worldwide popularity

Although this is well written and formatted, I'm not convinced that wikipedia is the place for it. Dave 00:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge with Keane. Unnecessary bandcruft. Geoffrey Spear 00:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 01:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above -- Whpq 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with Keane. :) Dlohcierekim 01:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Merge per comments above.--Saintlink 05:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Merge if you're feeling merciful. Lankiveil 12:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
• Delete - the place for this is in Keane. Also the title has a POV ring to it. BTLizard 12:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - ALL the information WAS on the Keane article. Due to a revert war, the information was moved--Fluence 14:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: User changed vote below. -Elmer Clark 00:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per BTLizard. How can it not be POV? Danny Lilithborne 17:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I can't see how this can be useful. JIP | Talk 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete altough well wirtten this dosent belong in wikipedia Benon 21:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Clamster5 23:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• OK, Delete. I'll merge the information but not with Keane Fluence 23:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, there might be a couple important pieces of info in there worth merging, but the majority really just isn't encyclopedic. -Elmer Clark 00:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. --Anthony5429 04:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and don't Merge with Keane. Richyard 07:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge - an article of its own isn't needed. Ergative rlt 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Simple awful. When will Fluence be stopped? - 195.194.136.252 11:13, 14 September 2006 (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.