Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Reichman (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. I'm closing this over-personal disgrace of an AfD as technical non-consensus. If there was ever an argument for not allowing the subject ot contribute or discuss their own article this is the example. I'm blocking her from further editing due to conflict of interest to prevent more of the same DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davina Reichman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overturned speedy deletion. Wearing once an outfit of bubble wrap does not make a person notable. The fashion show has been AfDed as non notable. The dubious notability of the clothing company would not be transferred to its manager. As a side note, the person herself considers the article "non notable"— Racconish^Tk 10:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original article has been incorrectly edited and altered beyond recognition. The facts have been distorted. As a result, this article is no longer correct and now not notable. Do not misquote me, Racconish. Racconish edited Davina Reichman 66 times in 2 days, removing valid sources. The talk page is peppered by rude and insulting comments by ill-mannered editors who should know better than to contravene strict Wikipedia guidelines.

There are now contradictory facts and misleading statements within the Wikipedia article. That is the reason that I requested by email and in writing to the Wikimedia Foundation that the article be deleted, Milowent. You and Racconish have too much time on your hands and your malice is not appreciated.

For instance, kindly note that Luke Staley has never been a founder nor a partner of iClothing. He was an employed as a pattern maker.

Vancouver Sun has since removed the incorrect article about Staley “Have your iPad in hand? Now you need a little black iDress” from their archives. I have email verification from the Senior Editor of the Vancouver Sun, Nicholas A. Palmer, that confirms the following, “The rectification was as I stated: the item has been suppressed in our archive. i.e. it no longer exists.”

Kindly correct this error by removing all reference to Staley in this article.

Racconish tampered with and distorted this article and iClothing on many occasions for no feasible reason into a sheer travesty. Several other editors, including JFHJr, followed suit.

My thanks to Cusop Dingle for a relevant point. Why waste other editors’ time with “frivolous renominations”? It is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Someone must be paying you to do this, Racconish. There has to be a reason for your irrational bias and bad behaviour. I strongly suspect an ulterior motive and believe it to be COI. The solution would be to bubble wrap your evil digits and mendacious mouth.

Davina.R (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Davina.R Davina.R (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Davina.R[reply]

I realize it must be very unpleasant to see other people discussing your notability (which is one of the reasons why writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged). Please bear in mind the word 'notability' is used here in a very technical way as meaning 'coverage of the person itself by reliable sources'. I don't think I have misquoted you... but now I am confused. Do you still want the article deleted, as you say you asked in writing to the Wikimedia foundation, or do you simply want it modified to meet your expectation? Concerning the Vancouver Sun, I am not sure I understand and follow you. First, if a correction needs to be made, it is generally published. Correcting an information by withdrawing it from an archive would not be a normal procedure. Then, the Vancouver Sun moves all its archives from the free site to a pay site after 30 days. Finally, I did find the article on Proquest, which means it has not been withdrawn. In any case, if some of the scarce generally reliable sources available on the subject would eventually prove unreliable, it would further demonstrate such lack of reliable sources.— Racconish^Tk 07:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least try to stop lying, Racconish? You found the original article about Luke Staley on the Vancouver Sun site. As you are well aware, Proquest is just a database and is of no consequence. If you take the time and trouble to search for the article currently in Vancouver Sun records, you would find that it is non-existent and does not appear even in the archives, where it would have been retained ad infinitum. Do not pretend that you incapable of comprehension. Fix your error regarding Luke Staley and stop your incessant babbling. Kindly use the bubble wrap around your mouth, as suggested. Davina.R (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Davina.R[reply]

Kindly refrain from such detracting comments. As I said, I found the Vancouver Sun article on Proquest. I actually provided in the article's citation, together with a full quote, the Proquest reference, 2049290071. I found here the Vancouver Sun provides free access to articles only for 30 days. Your statement is slightly self contradictory: if I would have found the article on the web site of the Vancouver Sun, as you say, then it would not have been deleted, as you claim. Not sure what you mean by "just a database [...] of no consequence". — Racconish^Tk 09:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you deleted from the article the references to the Vancouver Sun and Revista Cambio, another fully cited reliable source. What about the latter? Did you also contact them to request deletion from archives? I find it disturbing an editor with such an obvious conflict of interest as yourself deletes references to reliable sources without prior consensus in the middle of an AfD. In any case, (1) the claim on founding iClothing is not supported by any reliable sources at this point and (2) the removal of sources, justified or not, is not an argument for "keep". Is this a further indication you do not wish to see the article kept?— Racconish^Tk 10:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was too busy being furious at you for lying to notice that source “Vestirse con iPad también se puso de moda”. If it pleases you, put that reference back in. Davina.R (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Davina.R[reply]

Are you aware the Vancouver Sun and Cambio say the same?— Racconish^Tk 20:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - possibly borderline notable, but subject has requested deletion. Certainly should be deleted. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the drama continues, I see! I wondered how the hell this got deleted as a part of the fashion show AfD, so I'm not surprised to see it got restored as an improper deletion. And now Davina herself, apparently nonplussed at the fact that how she wanted the article to read did not work, wants it deleted? Delicious! I can only hope that Davina's "concerned friend" Olivia chimes in. May the drama continue for the full seven days, at which point, we will either have a deletion or no consensus close. The subject is borderline notable at best.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Man, this made me laugh so hard, a bit of wee came out! O_o Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]}

Note, only now did I notice Davina's mention of me in her above statement. Anybody who edits Wikipedia arguably has too much misspent time on their hands, however I have no malice here. In fact I !voted Weak Keep on the first AfD. But I cannot ignore the COI issues with the article, either.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not find sufficient evidence of notability to justify this article though I would not normally be bothering to argue "delete". However, if the subject is requesting deletion of the article then I am sure the "borderline notability" test should allow her wishes to be met. This whole matter has wasted a lot of time, including at DRV[1] but that was to do with the manner of speedy deletion rather than the contents of the article. Thincat (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment- for some reason the afd is not properly linked to the article in question. Can someone fix that? I would, but have no idea how. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Just had to put "?action=purge" in the URL box and reload. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question what has changed in the 7 weeks since the last AFD? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least this: the article on the fashion show has been considered non notable at AFD, many self published sources have been removed and Davina Reichman herself has requested the deletion of the article. We are left with 2 claims to notability, wearing once a bubble wrap outfit and managing iClothing, and a lack specific treatment by reliable sources. — Racconish^Tk 18:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does not seem to justify reopening the discussion so soon. The notability of another subject is only marginal for the notability of this one; notability is determined by whether sources exist, not whether they are in the article; and the subject's own views are irrelevant. The question is, does this person have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Seven weeks ago there was no consensus against that, so again I ask, why would that have changed? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant treatment of the person.— Racconish^Tk 20:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem to be answering the question, which was "what has changed in the 7 weeks since the last AFD". Are you saying that there were sources 7 weeks ago but there are none now? Or are you just saying that the previous decision was wrong and you would like another bite at the cherry? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly please focus on the article, not me as an editor.

I stated the reasons of my re-nomination and answered your first question. In any case, as long as there was no consensus the 1st time, it is legitimate to re-list. But in this case, there were also new elements which I have indicated. Also, I did not participate in the 1st discussion.

I think your second question is more relevant here. The scarce sources deal with (a) the bubble wrap outfit, (b) the fashion show, and (c) iClothing. (a) is a non-notable single event. (b) has been deemed here non-notable. Now what about (c)?

I argue that (1) should iClothing be notable, its notability would not be inherited by Davina Reichman, i.e. the notability of the company would not imply the notability of the person, in the absence of significant coverage of the person herself; and (2) iClothing's small coverage in the press was only in the wake of the launch of the Ipad (again, single event). There has not been anything since, and there is no more reason, at this point, to have an article on iClothing than on all the small companies having created an accessory for the Ipad.— Racconish^Tk 21:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am focussing on the reason for bringing forward a second AFD within a short period of the first when, as I pointed out, rather little of relevance seems to have changed. Per WP:NOTAGAIN, "Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination".— Racconish^Tk 22:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind expanding a bit on the significant coverage? — Racconish^Tk 22:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are, for example, a number of articles in reliable newspapers about this person, as no doubt you found WP:BEFORE launching the discussion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The various sources have been discussed on the talk page of the article. Only those currently in the article have been considered reliable and they don't significantly cover the person. Which one(s) do you consider significant? — Racconish^Tk 22:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the only sources you know of are those in the article, then I suggest you have not been looking hard enough. If you think that means that there cannot possibly be any sources in the entire world other than those you already know about, then there is clearly no point in continuing the discussion. You think there is not signficant coverage, I do. There doesn't seem much more to say -- let's let someone else comment. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like lots of sources. Granted notability of a topic is determined by sources being available, and not by sources being present in an article about that topic, but it's not a reason to simply assert their existence.— Racconish^Tk 22:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This person is not the subject of substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources. While Cusop correctly points out that we're not limited to what's currently in the article, the talk page provides a thorough discussion of why several previously offered sources failed on WP:RS or substantial coverage. If there's something else out there, show it to us. And need not refer to WP:NOTAGAIN because 1) there was no consensus to keep – the AfD resulted in no consensus; and 2) the biggest open question from the last AfD was whether this subject WP:INHERITs any notability from her fashion show or her clothing line. In this case, I don't think the collective reliable coverage of Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show and iClothing supports notability for their founder, even if it could be WP:INHERITed, since neither the event nor the clothing is notable per WP:GNG. It's perfectly alright for a BLP to contain non-notable content about otherwise notable people. But if the article contains only non-notable information, no matter how well it's cited, the subject still fails WP:BASIC requirements. JFHJr (㊟) 23:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion: - I'd like to vote Delete, but having been the admin that had his "out of process" speedy deletion overturned by DR, I'm probably obliged to have my vote discounted. I did however seek a second opinion on the admin's IRC channel and User:Worm That Turned concurred with my grounds for deletion. Essentially, the continued existence of the talk pages associated with this article is obviously causing undue distress to Davina, and trying to delete the article quietly was an attempt on my part to reduce the self-perpetuating Google papertrail. We're trying to be an encyclopaedia, not a gossip rag and if Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show and iClothing both fail the notability guidelines, then what's left that can be said to deem Davina notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. It simply doesn't improve Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. -- Netsnipe ► 03:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think what I actually said was that it was wholly out of process and shouldn't have been deleted like that, but it was the right outcome based on what I'd read and so I wasn't going to complain. As Netsnipe points out, this page has backfired horribly for Davina, it's not the first time this has happened, and it's something we should be trying to avoid on Wikipedia. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I won't speculate at motivations of nominator and JFHJr, but their behaviour, after the first deletion nomination failed, has been to attempt to delete the content of the article one section and reference at a time, until now, when they apparently think they've got enough to take another bite at the apple. I especially liked their going to WP:RSN where one of them asked - hey, is Tangent magazine notable? The other then answered - no, it isn't. They then declared the discussion closed, and deleted the source from the article. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_108#Tangent_Magazine. If this is how they cut down the rest of the article to the state it is now, then Ms. Reichman's frustration is clearly understandable. --GRuban (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not noticing you had reopened the discussion at WP:RSN 4 days after I had marked it as closed. Too bad you did not express your point of view at the talk page of the article. Though I originally added myself Tangent as a source to the article, I still consider it unreliable, after more careful examination and the discussion at RSN. — Racconish^Tk 07:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith removal of content that violates or falls short of BLP policies and guidelines, including WP:RS, and discussed at the article talk page, is no reason raise a specter of bias or improper motive. JFHJr (㊟) 07:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my keep opinion. I still think she's notable, and we could have rewritten the article to satisfy (more or less) everyone, but she doesn't want the hassle. Given that, I can't argue to torture her further while we debate. --GRuban (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There lacks significant coverage about her to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. I did find this local coverage. Taken with the other mentions of her, it is still falls short. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some concern was expressed at the Afd of Being Born Again Couture Fashion show on this source written by an intern, announcing the launch of a label which is not confirmed ex post by reliable sources.— Racconish^Tk 17:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being written by an intern shouldn't be a huge problem as I would still expect editorial oversight on the intern's work. However, it is still coverage in local press, and I'm not putting a lot of weight to that article towards establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage? 5 countries! Colombia [2]; United States Wall Street Journal, no less) [3]; United Kingdom [4]; Vancouver Sun (as above); and of course lots in Australia. --GRuban (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article you found from El Tiempo seems to be the same as the one I had found from Cambio. In as far as presenting DR as manager of iClothing, it confirms the Vancouver Sun and contradicts the WSJ blog and the Drum, who present her as iClothing's designer.— Racconish^Tk 09:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be a reasonable amount of notability for a modern artist/designer and fashion show producer. I agree with most of what GRuban has said above. Article has perhaps a bit severely, been pretty much pulled to pieces by User:Racconish who has a stated conflict of interest in the fashion topic field with his real life association to Charvet Place Vendôme, but no evidence has been produced to suggest there is some connection between that COI and his editing of this BLP. Youreallycan (talk) previously Off2riorob - 21:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – notability is dubious. Despite long running attempts to reduce bias, control COI, etc, sources remain thin, article lacks any biographical background of interest (childhood/education/career/etc) and has a few scrappy lines on events/businesses giving it a more resumé like appearance than a BLP. Those events/business wiki pages were also deleted, preventing merge, so it's questionable whether they carry any reasonable weight here, combined. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 03:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dare say that's because of the efforts of our two nominators (this one and the past nom) deleting everything that isn't nailed down, specifically to get that reaction. Here's what the article could and should look like: http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Davina_Reichman: Thoroughly cited and if not ample, at least sufficient on education and career. --GRuban (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some editors, it is simply a game they play because they have too much spare time on their hands. The prize of becoming an admin or a steward in the Wikimedia Foundation is just a massive ego trip. You do not have to be a detective to deduce that Racconish has a hidden agenda and COI. He has vandalised and ripped the article to shreds. I strongly suspect that Racconish actually an alias for Stephanie, the plump and lazy girl who was employed by me. She was fired, as she did no actual work and sat editing Wikipedia the whole day.

On Racconish’s talkpage, JFHJr says “The image crop you did for iClothing evoked a most chortleworthy comment from Davina herself.” and gave her a beer. The photo is a trademarked image posed by 2 professional models wearing the iDress & iTee. Racconish labelled them incorrectly and then decapitated them. It is this vindictive behaviour which disgusts the other editors.

I am taken aback at the Wikipedia process of re-nominating a deleted article, allowing editors to chime in with their malicious remarks “Delicious!”, quoting Milowent.

Racconish and JFHJr tag team their revolting repertoire while Milowment buts in. They behave like little giggling schoolgirls and deserve each other. I have nothing to hide and am not a coward, that is why I use my own name JFHJr instead of hiding behind a pseudonym. Stop your rude remarks Ma®©usBritish and do not call me "creepy" – I looked at your profile photo and retched a total of 20 times^{[example needed]} - it is you who are “creepy”, nauseating and unattractive.^{[dubious – discuss]}

Racconish persists in editing the article about me. The latest edit was on 25 November 2011‎ and cited “which manufactures[citation needed]“. Does iClothing magically acquire the clothing out of thin air? iClothing is “heralded as the world’s first iPad compatible clothes” by the Sydney Morning Herald [Lunn, Jacqueline, "Style: Talking Shop", Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney, Style section, pg 2, 2 June 2010]. iClothing featured in Gizmodo ["Give yourself rock hard abs of iPad with iClothing", Gizmodo, 24 May 2010] and CNN ["Introducing iPad-ready clothes for people with a 'digital lifestyle'", CNN, 24 May 2010] but Racconish failed to mention that in her efforts to destroy all legitimisation.

Racconish discredits Fashion.maga-zine, (in which I had the privilege of appearing twice), citing that Lawson writes for another publication which is insignificant and hence Fashion.maga-zine is non-noteworthy. How silly.

Racconish is an untruthful person with poor social skills and may not have any effective strategies in her repertoire other than bullying, to meet her needs. JFHJr follows slavishly. There is an imbalance of power that makes this ill treatment possible, whilst this repeated oppression is used to intimidate and dominate. Bullies get their satisfaction by invoking fear into a more vulnerable person and this is acutely disturbing to the victim.

Everyone should be treated with respect and fairness in a safe, harassment-free environment where bullying is discouraged, addressed and dealt with quietly and effectively within Wikipedia.

I agree with what GRuban, Netsnipe and Youreallycan previously Off2riorob said, however I do not want nor need this vandalising and atrocious behaviour from Racconish and her cronies.

There is no way to please a bully and I refuse to be a victim. The article has been edited and distorted, removing legitimate sources. Many of the facts are now incorrect. That is the reason I want this article to be deleted.

Davina.R (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Davina.R[reply]

I beg to differ: (a) The fact iClothing sells clothing does not imply it manufactures them, particularly if it "acquires" them. A reference is therefore needed for "manufactures". (b) This image's license authorizes anyone to modify it. As explained here, cropping it allowed to "avoid issues on identity of wearer" and focus on the clothing. I felt uncomfortable at raising a protest on Davina. R personal attacks at a time when I thought she should be allowed to express herself on the deletion of her biography, but some moderation would be welcome. Back to our discussion, I see the "keep" arguments hereabove derivating from an alleged notability of a company, iClothing, not a person, Davina Reichman.— Racconish^Tk 11:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC) My point on Lena Lawson was not that she writes somewhere else but that she is not independent from the subject, having worked as a "manager of modeling promotions for a well known Australian brand". Fashion maga-zine self description as doing "content-management" and "online marketing" seems to me to fall short of what is expected of a reliable source. Removing such sources is a recommended practice per WP:GRAPEVINE.— Racconish^Tk 20:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a different and more reasonable argument; however, I think there is a bit more to Reichman than just the company - the fashion show, and, yes, the bubble wrap bit. Each, though not sufficient in themselves, are a fine supporting item in the larger biography article. Neither would fit in an article on the iClothing company. Note that 2 (and a half) of the "delete" commenters in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Being_Born_Again_Couture_Fashion_Show_(2nd_nomination) are asking that be redirected here. The "half" bit is because the third is User:JFHJr who is now here asking that this be deleted as well, per the classic "death of a thousand cuts" method. --GRuban (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, the Wikifashion article is definitely not what the article here should look like. Several cites used in fact do not refer to the facts they are supposed to underpin, and it's replete with other severe problems from COI and OR to lots of SPS (including Black Tie Magazine where Davina is an editor). Have you tried to check out any of the claims on that page? The WP:LOTSOFSOURCES doesn't hold true. Have you checked out the article history? Davina is the one who wrote it! Under at least two names! Just like here, that article was written by the subject to promote herself, except here we have WP:BLP, WP:PROUD, and WP:NOTYOU. Again, plenty of non-notable information can come into an article about an otherwise notable person (education, childhood, etc), simply because someone somewhere published it, but restricting ourselves to reliable sources is not an option, and an article with WP:LOTSOFSOURCES but without substantial coverage by many such sources doesn't pass WP:GNG. Her ventures in non-notability cannot help her inherit it. JFHJr (㊟) 17:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Business must be good, if the "real" and super-notable Davina R. has so much free time on her hands to comment here daily! I mean, yeah.. I have 30 pairs of iPants on order for each of my friends for Xmas! Not. Petty girl. "There is no way to please a bully..." – sure there is, we just need to bow down to your demands to recreate the commercialised version of this "biography" and let Dom administer it. Maybe throw in a few affiliate links while you're at it so you can, not only insult the integrity of Wikipedians with your COI-based slurs, but gain a few bucks too. Needless to say, your rant above is so childish, it's no wonder you have trouble pursuing a more notable career. As for retching 20 times – what causes that? Bulimia? Tip: Hyperbole is only worth using when it makes sense. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep too much of a drama factory to be deleted. It has also been vandalised and messed with too much, AFD should only be used when the article is in the best state possible. Allow editors to fix it up then nominate again in the future if need be.--Otterathome (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the best state possible, with improper sources and unsourced claims gone (WP:BLP), not that it's at all relevant for AfD. At AfD, you're supposed to discuss whether and how the subject passes WP:BASIC requirements, and you're not constrained to the current content of the article. So what guidelines and particular sources do you base your keep vote on? I can't find any. JFHJr (㊟) 19:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some reliable sources had been found (Vancouver Sun, Cambio, The Australian) and were removed by an editor close to Davina Reichman and later by Davina Reichman herself. When the Australian writes the Born Again show is not the sole creation of Davina Reichman and co-credits Emily Fitzgerald, a suspicion of nepotism is thrown in. When the Vancouver Sun and Cambio mention the real designer od iClothing, Luke Staley, the references are deleted. BTW, the article in Wikifashion does not name any of these 2. How comes? If reliable sources justify an article on Davina Reichman, then why not her associates? If they are deemed good for her, I guess they are good for them too.— Racconish^Tk 20:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like other stuff exists. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the exact opposite.— Racconish^Tk 06:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otter's !vote is not serious and should be discounted. He got quite upset about 2 years ago when a series of his deletion nominations failed at AFD, and thus now takes quirky positions from time to time that everything flimsy must now be notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the arguments for or against deletion, not on the editor. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSFUNNY.— Racconish^Tk 13:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my comment was about the argument for keeping, in that it is spurious.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please would everyone remember what this page is for -- it is a discussion on whether or not to keep the article Davina Reichman. It is not the place to discuss the person or her businesses; it is not the place to discuss other articles; it is not the place to accuse other editors of misconduct; it is not the place to pursue personal vendettas arising on- or off-wiki. It would be a good idea if much of the verbiage were redacted or deleted by the authors. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to (partially) disagree: It is the place to discuss Davina Reichman. And iClothing for inherited notability . And possibly also iPad accessories.— Racconish^Tk 21:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These do not seem relevant to the question under discussion, and the only purpose of this page, namely, should this article be kept or deleted. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question It has been suggested that this article be deleted because the subject does not want it to be kept. Is there a policy or consensus decision somewhere that this is a valid reason for deletion? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPDEL refers to deletion requested by the subject. — Racconish^Tk 08:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That page does not state that requests by the subject are a valid reason for deletion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DPR: "Deletion discussions concerning biographies of living persons who are relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus to keep, may be closed as 'delete' per the deletion policy." Same shorter at WP:DELAFD.— Racconish^Tk 18:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:BLPDEL wasn't relevant after all. These are guidelines on how to close after the discussion: they are not policies stating that the subject's views are valid reasons for deletion. The guidelines state that the subject's views may be taken into account after the discussion if there is no consensus to keep. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing but trying to help answer the question you asked.— Racconish^Tk 20:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the executive summary of this answer would be "no". Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelming exceptions might not be appropriate in such situations.— Racconish^Tk 07:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Off2RioRob. Seems to meet GNG; the rest means it needs fixing through normal editing, not deletion. Chzz ► 10:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are now misleading, contradictory statements of facts within the Wikipedia article. Many of the reliable sources eg fashion.maga-zine.com and Wall Street Journal have been removed. OliviaBlond (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)OliviaBlond — OliviaBlond (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

OMG, Olivia has appeared! Despite her status as "Davina's concerned friend. My bête noire is when people dispute and disrupt notable articles," she has also argued for deletion! Olivia is a sock or sock-friend of Davina. When someone is very marginal and requests deletion of their own article which they have monkeyed with, I thought we tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage was found in reliable sources last time around. The last AFD was last month. Then someone improperly tried to do a speedy delete this month, which was quickly overturned. If you are going to repeat the same AFD a month after the first, which honestly should not even be allowed, then please contact those who participated last time. Can someone make a bot for that? Dream Focus 15:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No, there was no consensus as to significant coverage in reliable sources about Davina Reichman. If you were correct, there would have been a consensus to keep. And if you had a look at the article's talk page, you'd see several sources that were named last time don't truly pass muster as reliable. So can you point to significant reliable coverage from multiple sources this time? You seem to be arguing WP:NOTAGAIN. JFHJr (㊟) 18:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You insisted the sources were not valid during that AFD, arguing with others who felt otherwise. You did not convince many of us. Nothing has changed. Repeating your claims on the talk page that you made in the first AFD, doesn't suddenly change everyone's opinions about them. There was no reason to just repeat this discussion again because some didn't get the results they wanted the first time around. Dream Focus 22:03, 30 November 2011 (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.