Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Eliasch (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   Speedy Keep. Clear consensus for the outcome. The subject has sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG and for the close to fall under Speedy keep 2. Philg88 ♦talk 06:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Eliasch
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( 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. Clearly not notable. Along with the reasons mentioned this article has WP:SELFPROMOTION problems. -Aromavic (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. Subject clearly has sufficient RS coverage to pass WP:BASIC. This looks like a vexatious nomination by a WP:SPA whose only record on the project is one of unremitting hostility to the subject of the article. As such I urge Speedy Keep per WP:SK subsection 2. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Eliasch is a notable artist but because of continual vandalism, we editors who wish to support the article are unable to write it correctly. It is very factual, very accurate, but not full due to endless vandalism. There is no advertising in it, and has many editors now supporting it. There is no self promotion. The article is about a notable personality on the Art Scene in London, her work, is in collections that are not even mentioned on the biography, but mentioned in prominent press. I urge also a "Speedy Keep". Spikequeen (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)spikequeenSpikequeen (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This article has been deleted by many administrators in the past who have deemed it to be both un-notable and self promoting. Nothing has changed and the same page that has been repeatedly deleted has been recreated yet again with no improvements.  Administrators reviewing this deletion should note that the user Spikequeen is currently under investigation for sockpuppetry for multiple usernames some of which have already been blocked.  Please see the previous deletion article for Amanda Eliasch (Articles for deletion/Amanda Eliasch) as it highlights some of the issues that have been discussed before which still apply.Aromavic (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Spikequeen is only under SPI investigation because you, Aromavic, created the investigation page. Powers T 19:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the rationale for deletion in the first discussion involved only the content of the article, not the notability of the subject. Powers T 19:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Even a cursory glance at the references in the article demonstrates a basic level of notability.  I don't see any legitimate rationale for deletion, unless there are serious flaws with the several references that appear to constitute significant coverage.  Powers T 19:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets notability requirements. The article may have some tone issues, but AfD is not for clean-up and the problems are better fixed through editing. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Why so keen to beat a stick over this article? You may not like the article, but surely this not a question of like, it is a question of what someone has achieved, and clearly by all the people fighting over the article there are a lot of people pro it.Spikequeen (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Spikequeen


 * Speedy Delete. Her notability is certainly questionable, the references are not directly about the subject and make minor passing references to her as they do many other individuals who do not have pages.  However, this is blatant self promotion.PotassiBot (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — PotassiBot (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note to reviewing Admin PotassiBot is a newly created account whose only contributions to the project as of this moment consist of ten AfD !votes cast over a roughly 30 minute period. Many of the !votes, including this one, are separated by only a minute or two. There is no possibility that anything remotely resembling due diligence could have been performed on this or any of the other AfDs where s/he cast !votes. The attending comments also demonstrate a serious lack of understanding of, or possibly just disregard for, our standards and guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional Note to reviewing Admin - the time in which I review and edit pages is irrelevant. I make positive impartial contributions to articles and any conflict to this should be taken up on my talk page and should not be discussed here. Also I recommend investigating Ad Orientem as a sockpuppet.PotassiBot (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — PotassiBot (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * When you are attempting to manipulate an AfD discussion with at best ill-informed !votes, said discussion is absolutely the appropriate forum for addressing that. As for sockpuppetry, if you have evidence I encourage you to report me to WP:SPI. If you believe I am behaving inappropriately in some other manner you are free to take the issue up at WP:ANI. Otherwise you should be careful about casting around casual accusations in breach of WP:AGF. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Keep It seems very clear to me that a couple of people who clearly know the subject or dislike her have teamed up and are trying to delete the article. A common case of sock puppetry if you ask me. The subject and article meets all notability requirements. Links to leading newspapers and reliable sources are also included. Biboobi (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Biboobi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Speedy keep, strange nomination by editor who seems to have registered with the sole purpose of deleting this article. Eliasch clearly meets general notability criteria, has won awards and has been profiled in a number of major papers over a 15 year period. Sionk (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Either Ms Eliasch has an enemy who is seeking some kind of revenge here and wants her removed out of spite or this is someone who is wasting time and energy creating an account just to vandalise pages and waste editors and admin's time. The article does indeed meet notability requirements. That is definitely not the issue. DinkyExpress (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Verydinky (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I originally closed this as Speedy Keep but as someone disagrees I've reopened it. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  01:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That person was me, and in a great stroke of irony, I !vote to Strong keep. Pretty much every single sentence of this article has been sourced to WP:RS, and the editors who have greatly contributed to the article even maintained rather staunchly that they did this because they'd had problems in the past with deletion. The article easily meets the WP:GNG and should be kept as a result. The person is notable. Tutelary (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In which case there's no disagreement. So let's speedy close this farce of an AfD. Sionk (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well what the hell was the point of causing all this shit when you've just voted Speedy/Strong ?.... Wow!. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  01:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It needs to go for the full 7 days and be reassessed by an administrator due to the socking/SPA issue that is occurring. I did this because I've often seen cases of non-admin closure getting contested by someone with clear motives; I just wish for this process to be clear and overt, with no clear POV. If the consensus is clear, then it will be kept easily and no more afds will be allowed within short periods. (within reason, obviously.) Tutelary (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The likely sock puppetry in no way alters the nature of this AfD. It is an obviously vexatious nomination subject to WP:SK 2 and it should not be allowed to stand. Reopening the AfD in this manner is highly questionable and dragging this out for seven more days is silly. It undermines WP:SK, WP:SNOW and WP:COMMONSENSE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out on the Talk page, it also needs an admin to reopen a closed AfD. Maybe a non-involved admin (i.e. one that hasn't previously speedied this article) needs to make a call on whether this can be speedily closed. Sionk (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I am requesting an Admin to look into this and respectfully ask that no further edits be made to the AfD until this is resolved. Any further commentary should be posted on the talk page for now. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 5 September 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.