Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Davina Reichman (2nd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Youreallycan (talk | contribs) at 21:35, 26 November 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:35, 26 November 2011 by Youreallycan (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Davina Reichman

AfDs for this article:
Davina Reichman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(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 10:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  • 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 Misplaced Pages guidelines.
There are now contradictory facts and misleading statements within the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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
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 Misplaced Pages 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 07:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
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
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 09:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
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 10:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - possibly borderline notable, but subject has requested deletion. Certainly should be deleted. Worm · (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 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 • 14:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 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 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)
  • 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)
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 18:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
There is no significant treatment of the person.— Racconish 20:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
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 21:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
"... 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 22:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind expanding a bit on the significant coverage? — Racconish 22:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 22:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 22:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages. It simply doesn't improve Misplaced Pages as an encyclopaedia. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
    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 Misplaced Pages. Worm · (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 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. Misplaced Pages: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)
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 07:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 17:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
  • Keep - seems to be a reasonable amount of notability for a modern artist/designer and fashion show producer. 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 association to Charvet Place Vendôme but there is nothing been produced to suggest there is some connection to that COI and his editing here. Youreallycan (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Categories: