Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Allen

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The result of the nomination was unanimous keep, nomination for deletion withdrawn. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lily Allen

I'm pretty sure it fails WP:MUSIC. I vote Delete My apologies. It does appear that she is notable. If I could retract my nom I would. Keep and cleanup.TheRingess 00:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Looks like a bad-faith nomination, considering the rampant vandalism currently happening on the page and the fact she currently has the number one single in the UK, [1] --Ataricodfish 01:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm striking my bit about the bad-faith nomination, as having reviewed the page history I believe the nominator meant well and was nominating based on one of the previously biased articles that looked like just another MySpace article. But my keep vote remains, due to her successful single. --Ataricodfish 01:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, but article needs work. -- Gogo Dodo 01:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I wiped out most of the vandalism, I believe. -- Gogo Dodo 01:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Her single is currently number one in the UK Chart so she meets the very first notability criterion of WP:MUSIC. -- JJC1138 02:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since the nominator has withdrawn his original arguments. (Speedy keep?) RFerreira 03:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, nominator withdraws his nomination. HumbleGod 06:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Super Speedy Keep, number one in UK today with Smile. Budgiekiller 12:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - also meets "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." criteria, as she is currently on the highest rotation playlist of BBC Radio 2 [2] Alexj2002 12:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Alexj2002 and nominator. Yamaguchi先生 18:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Why doesn't whoever wanted to delete the entry now get rid of the thing at the top ruining it if they no longer want it deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.56.5 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - because the article was nominated for deletion and has to now run its course until an admin decides that either the withdrawal of the orignial nomination or the overwhelming keep vote is sufficient to remove the notice. Budgiekiller 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - She's certainly well known now, and the article appears to have been extensively cleaned up. - I84 21:44, 10 July 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.