Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Keane


 * 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 speedy keep. per SK1 - Being unsourced isn't a valid reason for deletion, Clearly BEFORE was followed so wrapping it up as SK (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 23:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Keane

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article should be deleted because it is unsourced meaning it fails WP:LISTVERIFY. Also, The core principle is not-noteable and would not be expected to be seen in an encyclopedia. -KAP03Talk 22:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Articles are deleted for non-notability. There are not deleted because article (or list) is WP:IMPERFECT. WP:LISTVERIFY is not a notability guideline. This appears to be a bona fide member of Category:Lists of awards by musician. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as reasonable WP:SPLIT from main article because of WP:SIZE issues; listing significant/notable awards and nominations for notable performers is a standard and expected part of our coverage. At most it would be trimmed and merged back there (none of this is currently at Keane) so per WP:ATD policy deletion is off the table. The nomination is completely without merit and confused as to relevant policy and guidelines. Outside of narrow BLP concerns we do not delete content "because it is unsourced"; we delete it because it cannot be sourced. And when we're dealing with notable awards and/or awards by notable organizations, it's simply not credible to claim that here. We have the awarding authority, the name of the award, the year, and the recipient. That arguably is a source, as awards and award announcements are effectively documents themselves; it certainly is a clear guide to a reader where the information can be found elsewhere. I suggest to the nominator, who has made a number of similarly invalid AFD nominations recently, that they ask an experienced editor for a second opinion before they nominate any more, else they find themselves topic-banned for repeatedly wasting the community's time. They should also read through WP:BEFORE thoroughly and spend more time reading deletion discussions to see what is considered a persuasive or relevant argument. postdlf (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not currently citing references isn't reason to delete. This is a basic spin out. It's significant content that should be included somewhere but would take up too much space if included in the main band article. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Rhododendrites. 1292simon (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per comments above and WP:NEXIST. GauchoDude (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2017 (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.