Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francissca Peter
- 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Francissca Peter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly written article on a singer of some notability, the article was written by someone who was paid to do so by the artist herself as I found out in an email I received from the page's author. Despite their attempts to improve the article itself promotes their early life and work, thus I am nominating it for deletion. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:35pm • 11:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep appeared in multiple commercials and stage productions, has a following in Malaysia. seems to meet WP:ENT Warfieldian (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- If what is written is truthful, then this should be kept as it would meet the WP:music criteria. However some facts need to be checked and referenced to see if this is true and not exaggeration. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- 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) 00:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator concedes that she is notable, so the solution to any shortcomings in the article is to improve it through normal editing rather than by deleting it. In addition, the article makes strong claims to notability, and 11 references of varying quality are provided. Paid editing is discouraged though not forbidden, and is not a legitimate reason in itself to delete an article about a notable topic. Cullen328 (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep on notability alone; feel free to remove the promotional content - even to stub, if needed. Probably best to cut & paste deleted content to talk page with explainer as to why it was removed. No need for AFD to do that: WP:BOLD. And thanks for finding content in violation of WP policy. - Davodd (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2011 (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.