Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Fraser

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Fraser

The subject of the article has requested [1] deletion citing real world problems arising from repeated errors in the article. The subject appears to be only marginally notable so courtesy deletion after an AFD is within guidelines. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Brooke Fraser is huge in New Zealand, as evidenced by almost 400 000 Ghits. Many subjects would prefer that their Wikipedia article did not exist, however, provided the article passes notability guidelines, it should remain in the article space. Ms Fraser or her representatives are welcome to make referenced updates to the article if they wish. Particular concerns should be addressed through WP:BLP, not deletion. WWGB (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, you are kidding me people. A reminder to the nominators you are actually meant to do a search before nominating an article for AfD. Two #1 NZ albums, #29 in the Aussie charts, and #90 on billboard, and that's from just reading the article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that Spartaz was nominating this article at the request of the subject. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware of that from the intro, but the claims should still have been checked. The fact that the Nom says the "subject appears to be only marginally notable" comes across as that they've not even taken 30 sec to look at the article. IMHO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per major star above. Looking at this history I can only see a couple of edits obviously done my her mngt and that was several months ago. Article doesn't appear to have problem content. - SimonLyall (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WWGB. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Too well-known to be deleted upon subject's request. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Keep! Sorry about the real world errors. We can think about notability, but we can't stop people from being dicks. plan 8 (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there are problems they need fixing (and Wikipedia makes this ridiculously harder than hard for a biographic subject, so I sympathise), but the subject is clearly notable. Webmink (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep one of the most notable individuals to request deletion as far as I'm aware. We should of course work with Fraser to fix any serious problems in the article. However, this is by no means an article we can reasonably remove. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: The article does not contain one URL or link to independent commentary which demonstrates her notability. If she is notable, there must be some commentary out there. Why is it not in the article? No wonder there are currently errors in the article. At the moment, the article is mostly unreferenced babble taken from fan websites. I will change my stance if some online references to independent commentary are placed in the article. Delete the article now. Bring it back another day if it is rewritten from factual sources. --Lester 21:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have added ref from New Zealand Herald which confirms her US chart success, clearly satisfying WP:MUSIC. Murtoa (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I was in New Zeland she was bigger than L&P. --Roisterer (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::Comment: So now there is a reference for the charts. But still no reliable online reference for the commentary. If she's "bigger than L&P", that's even more reason to expect some minimum standards with the article, and more reason to expect reliable sources for the commentary. As the subject complained about the factuality of the article, plus the inclusion of only unreliable references for that commentary, the article should be swiftly deleted, to be returned at a later date if someone puts the work into finding reliable references.--Lester 03:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:ATD, if a page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. To this end, I have added a clean-up tag. However, this article's subject meets a relevant notability guideline viz. WP:MUSIC and I don't think it breaches WP:BLP - therefore I don't believe there is a basis for deletion. Murtoa (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my previous comments, due to added material.--Lester 09:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - how does one access the subject's request to prove that it actually exists? JRG (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.