Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legendary rahimah rahim profile


 * 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. I brought this here because I could not figure it out, and Uncle G, cleared up all the problems. Object lesson to be careful at speedy  DGG (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Rahimah Rahim (singer)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination--encountered at Speedy--absurd amount of COI and inappropriate personal autobio, but might conceivably be notable anyway -- claims to have a hit song. DGG (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. You have to dig really deep in there to find the rather vague mention of a hit song. There are plenty of mentions of sub-par notability, and all I could find on Google was places where to download that alleged hit song (though there are truckloads of such sites). --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 17:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I concur with the above statement, but unless someone can find some actual resources about this lady, I think this should be deleted. It has absurd amounts of CoI, and is poorly written in my view. Babylonian Armor (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The irony here is that this person is probably a better candidate for being the primary topic at Rahimah Rahim than the Singapore Idol contestant is, given that this person has released albums, is clearly a well known household name who is still recognized by people 16 years after retiring, and that the Idol contestant changed her name to avoid the clash. Perhaps most telling is that on the Malay Wikipedia, this is the person who gets the primary topic, and the Idol contestant doesn't even have an article yet.  &#9786; Oh yes, the suggestion that there's a conflict of interest here is a bizarre one.  There's no reason to believe that Lyndaharapan is this person.  The initial poor choice of title I would attribute to lack of Clue (as to what a properly encyclopaedic article title is) and probably having English as a second language, rather than conflict of interest. By the way, "claims to have a hit song" made me chuckle.  This person has twelve albums, all of which have been best sellers and two of which (Gadis Dan Bunga and Bebas) went gold.  "claims to have a hit song", indeed! Uncle G (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at a previous version of the article, it even says that the source of information of information is a 1st Party Source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babylonian Armor (talk • contribs) 12:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it didn't. It pointed to the article on this person in the Malay Wikipedia, which it now does with a proper interlanguage link. Uncle G (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you're talking about. (It wasn't in the previous version at AFD nomination.  DGG had taken that text out.)  But that still doesn't mean that Lyndaharapan has a conflict of interest.  Because it turns out that Lyndaharapan's source was a user page in Wikipedia for another account: User:Legendary Rahimah Rahim.  Don't attribute to conflict of interest and sockpuppetry what is more simply explained by lack of Clue, poor English, and unwise use of a bad source.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. According to The Star, the subject was "one of Singapore’s biggest singers in the 1980s", and the article and sources now clearly reflect her notability. Good work Uncle G. decltype (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The changes in this article after the addition of sources and reorientation by Uncle G show that it clearly meets inclusion guidelines. Closer, please note that the earlier commentators saw a different article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  20:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.