Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Eliasch


 * 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 speedy deleted by User:Orangemike per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Eliasch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reads like a biography page in a fashion magazine, on whose context and content displays particularly weak notability. Asserts WP:BIO and fails and so fails WP:GNG. Also uses bare URLS which will never get fixed. scope_creep talk  20:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - Promo bollox that belongs anywhere but here. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep/Comment - Wasn't aware that bare URLS were a deletable offence. But what I am seeing are sources in The Independent, The Times, The Sunday Times. That's several acceptable sources right there, and a glance shows they're articles about her. Yes, the page is a mess, but the article needs improvement. I think we're being a bit harsh to the new editor whose first article this is - he's obviously tried very hard to do it properly with sourcing, supporting cites, etc, and actually, I think the subject has sufficient notoriety and coverage to qualify for an article on her. Now if it's OK with anyone else, I'm going to welcome him to Wikipedia. Mabalu (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)""


 * Comment It's a beautiful article, well written and worthy of it's editor However, it is the worst kind of article, which subverts the Spirit and Letter of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a business directory nor a fashion catalogue, nor a fashion magazine, and this article makes WP into a promo platform.  She is simply not notable, in my opinion. scope_creep talk  15:16  14 August  2014 (UTC)
 * CommentI think it is a case of cyber bullying. There are so many lesser people on Wikipedia. Eliasch has achieved a lot. I am surprised at all your unpleasantness when the guide lines are that you should be positive and correct. There has been little productive help. Wikipedia needs all different sorts of people, not just bird watchers and politicians. I will stick up for someone I believe in. If there needs to be some corrections I understand. The rest is drivel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AERATBAG (talk • contribs) 19:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep 09:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)KEEP THIS ARTICLE. This was my first article and would be grateful for support. It has credible URLS, from The Times, the woman is of note, She has won many prizes for her work with poetry and film, and is more of interest that many included in wikipedia. I am surprised by the rude commentsAERATBAG (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)AERATBAG
 * Comment Fixed incorrect Afd entry and formatting by AERATBAG. scope_creep talk  15:18  14 August  2014 (UTC)

Stop being nasty to my dear friend please. We can't all be internet geniuses, but this woman's achievements are considerable and deeply worthy of consideration. What she is too modest to mention on here is all the work she does as an arts philanthropist making things happen which otherwise simply would not. Be nice, give Amanda Eliasch a break. On balance she makes the world a better place. Can you honestly say that you do the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petecater (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Eliasch is a massively successful talent. How anyone criticizes her achievements is beyond me. The Internet trolls these days have far too much power to hurt people... and aside from that, don’t they have anything better to do than to attack people who actually do something with their lives. Oh well. Onwards and upwards Ms. Eliasch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.122.19 (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

AERATBAG — Preceding unsigned comment added by AERATBAG (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have edited the pages, which some of you critical people out there could have done too? Why not check Eliasch out before exerting your meanness, it is easy, she has done much more than most. I have read the rules of Wikipedia and it says that you should all be helpful and polite. Some of you were incredibly unhelpful. It is lucky your pages are not under construction.  It is a very difficult job to do new pages so it would have been better if you had helped, and Wikipedia relies on a balanced approach.  Anyway I feel the page is much more appropriate now. Perhaps give it and me a chance, or indeed help constructively. Life is more interesting with characters in it. Correct and helpful behaviour is much more interesting. Incidentally this page was up for about 6 years and nobody did anything with it.. then …. a rat came out of its box….
 * Comment Article has undergone a deletion by administrator User:Orangemike. Reason is: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Please Close this discussion. scope_creep talk  20:23  16 August 2014 (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.