Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Reichman


 * 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. This is a case where we have a lot of coverage in independent reliable sources, but whether it is significant is open to debate. Many of them deal with iClothing as their primary subject, and when dealing with companies and their founders WP:INHERITED is always case-by-case. In this discussion, I did not find a consensus over this matter. Meanwhile, WP:COI and WP:BLP are non-issues with regards to deletion. First of all the COI allegations are speculation, and even if they were true, the article should stay if the subject is notable. BLP violations, if any, can be addressed by removing unsourced content from the article. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Davina Reichman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fashionista subject is not notable per the following: guidelines:


 * 1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * 3) The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * 4) The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. (...)

After significant cleanup per WP:BIO, WP:SOURCES, and WP:BLP the article content indicates its subject is not notable in an encyclopedic way. Some media coverage has been given to the subject's clothing line as a concept, but a stand-alone article for this individual as a subject is not supported by that scant coverage. Having removed interested parties from references, the facts they asserted, and assertions unsupported by any citations, the article reads like a brief social media profile. JFHJr (㊟) 05:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi JFHJr,

Reichman is not a Fashionista, she is a fashion entrepreneur. Her iClothing brand and her Being Born Again Couture mark that.

You have "cleaned up the article" in such a way that it is very obscure and there is nothing left of Reichman except a few lines which by itself aren't notable.

I don't know if I could do this, because I am new, but could I roll back your "cleanup" to the one before you "edited", therefore Reichman is notable once again?

Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y — Domenico.y (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep and roll back the error


 * Please have a look at WP:NN for general notability guidelines, then see WP:SOURCE, WP:BIO, and WP:BLP as to why the references were invalid, and as to why claims about living persons must be verifiable through reliable third-party sources. My edit summaries were adequate, and a rollback is uncalled for. JFHJr (㊟) 06:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"verifiable through reliable third-party sources" - interviewers and magazines interviewed Reichman for her notability and her fashion entrepreneurship for her founding of iClothing and she changed the course of history for 2 Australian fashion designers with Being Born Again Couture (which you took out).

Where are those cites of ABC News (America), CNN, The Wall Street Journal, Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), Gizmodo, www.news.com.au (Australia), 360Fashion, Fashion ONE TV, Channel 7 & Channel 9 (Australia), ChanceTV (NYC), Veja TV (Latino) and NDTV (China)? She is Australian but she moved to New York City to make a name in the fashion industry which is mighty hard and she has. Please roll back the changes that you have made so others can comment on her notability. Domenico.y (talk) Domenico.y —Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC).


 * For context, this is the version of the article before I edited. I removed references and text gleaned from sources either directly from the subject, closely related, or which were uncited. There were no CNN, Wall Street Journal, Gizmodo, ABC, and other cites when I removed content. That's why I removed the content (see WP:BLP). Even when covered in media, one story does not establish notability. Please take care to verify that edits you think happened actually happened. JFHJr (㊟) 06:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - the references have been removed by a little pixie I think! I will edit the references back in but tomorrow evening. Thank you for your time. Domenico.y (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
 * Delete - the references are nothing  but  fleeting  mentions and the web pages mostly  closely   paraphrase the same articles or a press release about  an event. This is not  extensive coverage in  the serious press that  make for reliable sources. Fails WP:BLP, WP:BIO and WP:ORG whoever (person) or whatever (fashion company) the subject  is. The article is a blatant  vanity  page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per same rationale as Kudpung. Chillllls (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, I have re-written the entire article so it has references before which JFHJr could not find. I have rolled back the comments till "Ok, thanks - the references have been removed by a little pixie" at 06:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC). Put a "rescue" tag for admins Domenico.y (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
 * I've reverted your removal of other people's comments. Please don't do that anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop adding references published by Davina Reichman (Linkedin profile) or for her (Q&A by Reichman; statements by companies, groups, or events associated with Reichman). These are inappropriate because they are not reliable, verifiable, third-party references. Blogs are also problematic and should not be used as references. Please also make sure the cites you use actually refer to the content in the references; "DAY 4 RAFW 2010. Killer Wedges, Draping genius, True Blood and front row privalage(again)", Beyond the Runway and others that you added did not actually refer to the claims contained in the article. Also, if you can't find references, please don't cite the statement with "Couture Fashion Week NYC website www.couturefashionweek.com but can’t find reference – where should I look?" – if you put the content in the article, a reference must be ready. Otherwise please keep these things as a draft in your own user subpages. Thank you. JFHJr (㊟) 19:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't know fashion entrepreneur from a cork hat, but this subject meets Notability. It's true that article creator is a bit enthusiastic adding sources that are merely photos, but there are some real ones there too. Wall Street Journal, Fashion Maga-Zine,Fashion Maga-Zine again, and News.com.au are real coverage. --GRuban (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal or News.com.au, a subsidiary of News Limited or Womens Mafia or Artmonthsydney not reliable? You have got to be kidding, JFHJr. Since when can that be faked or not reliable? I will edit the article again to ensure the references by NOTABLE publications are available for everyone to see. Domenico.y (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
 * For example, the WSJ Blog and news.com.au video are about iClothing, not really about the creator. Interviews don't necessarily establish notability for the speaker, but may be probative of the notability of the subject about which they're speaking (iClothing). Interviews and the like are objectively problematic because we're hearing firsthand accounts of the subject. Otherwise, mentions must be notable, and not every mention in press garners notability. The two-part article on Fashion Maga-Zine is clearly closer to an acceptable WP:SOURCE (here and here), but a notable person (cf. that person's products) should have wider coverage in well-known, reliable media if it's truly a notable person. JFHJr (㊟) 20:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree - Reichman created and founded iClothing, facilitating them. She created a new technology-fashion instrument. How many of you out there have done that please? Please see the video on news.com.au and read the article on The Wall Street Journal, if you haven 't already. Who's to say what is well known? Are you Australian? Do you consider the Mornings with Kerri-Anne "notable"? The population of Australia tunes in every morning to watch that show and it is on every workstation TV in consultancy's around Australia. As for ABC TV, that is notable because they are in every country. They take off old links from the past 6 months every year to make room for more content. There was a link on ABC TV's Art Nation but now it appears to be gone. Shall I cite but somehow get the archived old copy? Please look at the images from the Being Born Again Show and compare them to the images on the different sites - they are exactly the same, Lo Sordo and Fenitti created garments with Reichman's assistance and influence. Thanks Domenico.y (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y


 * Again, you've restored problematic text despite clear explanations why it's inappropriate. 1) "Her career in fashion entrepreneurship started from that point on. " ... neither of these cites supports the statement you restored. You also added: [interviewed by] ABC TV's "Art Nation" Again, that video has zero to do with Davina; don't use irrelevant cites. 2) Davina Reichman is affiliated with the Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show, which is arguably not notable in itself. References authored by the BBACFS are unacceptable because they are closely associated with Davina, and because the event's mention is not notable. 3) Again, Q&A sessions are problematic because we're getting information about the subject from the subject. Please stop adding this reference for any of the content within it; also, interviews don't make the interviewee notable. 4) your references here do not support the claims you made in any way: Reichman created and influenced 2 famous Australian fashion designer’s range, Michael Lo Sordo . and Nicola Finetti  using her Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show.  ...these are not acceptable references for the assertions you're making! This is original research. Please read WP:SOURCE and WP:OR.  I'm removing the parts that cite only that Davina was interviewed. It's not notable that she was interviewed. If she's notable, there will be something about Davina from a third party source.  And finally, if you need to cite to a dead link, try searching the Wayback Machine (just google it). JFHJr (㊟) 21:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, hold on please Domenico.y (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

P.S. I take it you don't know about fashion, but when people influence 2 major fashion designers, it's notable, no matter what country they are from. The designers may not have mentioned this, but through photos and references, we can see that. That is the sole reason I kept in those references. Now I have to really go catch the train for work. I will be back online in 13 hours' time.

Thank you for respecting that tag. Domenico.y (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y


 * Again, you have re-added the following: Reichman created and influenced 2 famous Australian fashion designer’s range, Michael Lo Sordo   and Nicola Finetti

The claim of influence is not supported by the cites you've provided; only one reference mentions Davina (her own Q&A), and even that one doesn't say she "influenced" anyone. Please cite only to references that support your claim. JFHJr (㊟) 21:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear JFHJr,

If you please look at the photographic evidence, you will see. "influenced" - it does not need to say that when looking at those images. Please look and see and then you will note that it is correct in saying that Reichman influenced. I am busy finding articles after work - please let me finish work. And hold off editing till I get off work because it is unfair. Admin - can you do something here please to put a hold on the article? Domenico.y (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y


 * I've looked at every cite you keep restoring. Multiple times. I've even watched videos you've used as refs. The influence you're identifying is not stated in any reference you've cited. What you're describing is exactly what is forbidden by WP:OR and WP:BLP. Have you taken a peek at these policies? You can't synthesize what sources don't say on their own. Such use of references to further WP:OR is not academically or encyclopedically acceptable. Again, please stop attempting to restore that section. Besides, even if you could conclusively establish influence through valid sources, you'd still have to show notability to have a mention in a WP:BLP. Please do have a third, second, or perhaps first look at the numerous policies and guidelines I've tried to point you to. Thanks. JFHJr (㊟) 22:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're going to talk about synthesising sources, please link to WP:SYNTHESIS to aid matters - it's probably not a word to chuck at non-native English speakers without explaining. And I expect it's a concept many non-academic people are not too familiar with, either.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Talk]&#91;RFF] 00:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The person gets coverage in reliable sources mentioned in this AFD already.  D r e a m Focus  00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete severe conflict of interest indicated with long winded defenses of this individual. clearly fails WP:BIO. gnews reveals a mere mainly 8 passing mentions confirming attendance at events. hardly makes you notable. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

— 68.175.22.238 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete I know her from Australia. This was obviously written by her or someone on her behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.22.238 (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:IKNOWIT is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have to admit that the extraordinary  efforts that the defender(s) are making to  keep  this article do  indeed appear to  be indicative of a very  strong  confilct  of interest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it's also very easy to disparage newbie eagerness as being COI. As much as I see "COI" being thrown around, I have yet to see what the COI is, specifically. Until then, it's either a choice between obeying WP:AGF or contradicting WP:BITE.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Talk]&#91;RFF] 02:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Right on, Marcus. As far as I can tell, the WP:COI comments seem speculative. AGF says assume the editor simply feels passionately until it's clearly demonstrated otherwise. Let's talk about Davina Reichman's notability here. JFHJr (㊟) 02:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite right, as I see it, all these "COI" stones being hurled are what some people consider "legitimate" personal attacks, which AfDs often resort to so I'm not getting embroiled in this one in terms of deletion – COI is often in the choice of sources, not the editor themselves, and people need to learn to discriminate between the two – as far as notability goes, I can't be sure, my strengths lie in history where notability is not usually as difficult to determine as "modern" personalities and BLPs. What with all the crap on the internet: mirror sites, blogs, twitter, scoops, etc I much prefer real scholarly books, and being able to identify notability from more than any website can offer, including Wikipedia; plus I'm not really into over-paid/over-rated celebrities and media attention anyway – I don't read magazines, don't watch TV or follow the news, so I'm not too good at recognising notable modern biog sources, or more to the truth, I'm not just patient enough to filter through all the "COI" online crap to separate it from "reliable" online crap – Google is useless these days, 1 good site in every 100 results. Given the considerable COI changes to, and debate surrounding this article I'm borderline weak keep/delete, and think "keep and improve" might be the outcome. In the case it gets deleted, I think Domenico can still work on a v2 from scratch and have less trouble in the long run than he has now.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  &#91;Talk]&#91;RFF] 02:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Give the guy/girl a break, he's/she's new. Possibly more important, COI or not, there really are some reasonable sources in amongst the hype. Don't throw the article out with the bathwater. --GRuban (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Despite the extra-long text above, the issue is simple.  Yes, its not a great article, and it was created by the subject and likely subsequently edited by people with COI issues. But as to whether she meets WP:GNG, its a fair nomination, because its a borderline case.  The coverage cited by GRuban is either enough or its not, we'll either reach consensus or not.  It might get deleted, it might not, the outcome in these marginal cases of notability is not always predictable nor consistent, and the delete !votes have merit as well.--Milowent • talkblp-r  03:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Obvious WP:BIO and WP:BLP issues, not even getting into the additional areas where I think there is evidence of WP:COI, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR going on here. Also, WP:BITE is not even light-years close to being a valid reason for leaving an article remain in the encyclopedia when it should be deleted. Trusilver  04:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I was researching last night and came across this article: http://www.textileglobal.com/2010/05/the-fashion-group-international-of-sydney-presentation-interpreting-trends-aw-2010.html and in here is the I think proof I am searching for: "Davina created & facilitated the Michael Lo Sordo & Chris Horder collaboration for Rosemount Australian Fashion Week. Michael is using Chris’ prints for his fashion collection this season." - it is not a blog, it is textileglobal.com.

I could have sworn I put this in the first place, but I can't find it. Is this necessary proof? What JFHJr is concerned about I have speculation, not proof and he is right because I failed to put in that article it seems, but I think this is proof? Then I can put in the references of the photo of Imbruglia wearing Lo Sordo print, that runway.comms article and the ArtMonth article referenced? I don't know if I am allowed to do this though because there is too many 'deletes' already? Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Domenico.y
 * Put the question, and similar comments, on: Talk:Davina Reichman as it'll make this page less convoluted.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Talk]&#91;RFF] 18:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Apparently Marcus' own research regarding COI now seems to suggest he believes has a concern there is a COI. Since this information has not been updated on the AfD I am providing a link here . ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not assume or infer what I believe - WP:OR - I don't jump to conclusions, like yourself. The diff above does not state my belief, it poses a concern, get off your high-horse. You are using information to advocate a POV, and further harassing Dom. I have warned you about this priggish wiki-lawyering already on ANI: I suggest you take note of it.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 14:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course there is a COI editor problem with the article, no jumping is required. Its a textbook case. However, whether the subject is notable for purposes of AfD is a separate inquiry.  Everyone is whining about mostly irrelevant stuff in this afd.  Gruban and myself and have addressed notability in our votes, Kudpung has rationally stated the non-notable deletion rationale.  I think no reasonable admin is going to give D.'s wall of text too much weight.--Milowent • talkblp-r  15:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sorry if I incorrectly read your concern as a belief, Marcus. I have struck the word "believes" from my post and changed it to, "has a concern."  Regardless of if you believe it is a COI, the evidence of such is quite clear.  But as Milowent has rightly pointed out, that is not the primary concern of the AfD, and this should focus on the subject's notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What evidence - tell me how a "friend of Davina" is any less biased than a Christian editing religious articles, a Beatles fan editing John Lennon articles, etc? The COI is thin-ice, he hasn't admitted to working for her. You're pushing your point too far, I've already raised this concern on ANI, I think you're out of hand and using this AfD as a mission to "punish" Dom for your own reward. It's no longer amusing.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 15:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am only responding here because you have asked, and providing a link to the COI logic here and follow-up with additional information here .  But as we have discussed upthread the COI is not the primary focus of this AfD.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Both editors seem to have differing points of view in Talk:Davina_Reichman.

Conclusion: In any case: Christopher Horder is famous Australian artist which exhibits in Liverpool Street Gallery, Sydney, Australia. Michael Lo Sordo is a famous Australian fashion designer. After the Being Born Again Couture in April, Lo Sordo received heaps of press in regards to the prints (which were collaborated by Christopher Horder) which Reichman 'created and facilitated'. Lo Sordo was showing in Australian Fashion Week using those very prints in May.

Now even for ArtMonth, Sydney Australia says "Gallery Talk: Christopher Horder and fashion designer Michael Lo Sordo discuss their collaboration for Rosemount Australian Fashion Week 2010."  They collaborated for Australian Fashion Week " Christoper Horder's CV reads"...Being Born Again Couture, collaboration with fashion designer Michael Lo Sordo"  and there is of course facebook

"Reichman created and facilitated a Michael Lo Sordo and Chris Horder collaboration project for Australian Fashion Week" (according to JFHJr is the correct citing of the text) Textile Global, The Fashion Group International of Sydney Presentation Interpreting Trends Autumn Winter 2010,, May 27 2010

(It is much easier to put the text on the AfD for Reichman, because only 2 editors commented and 2 out of possibly 100 editors is not the majority.)

Domenico.y (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y


 * Don't use &lt;ref>s in comments as there is no reflist in most talk pages, just articles; use 2 square brackets to link to wiki pages, one square brackets for external links. Also, Facebook is not a reliable source.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 18:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi JFHJr,

Why did you remove my text when you said to do "Reichman created and facilitated a Michael Lo Sordo and Chris Horder collaboration project for Australian Fashion Week"? with that reference? I do not understand. On wikipedia, it says that you should not remove anything without explaining it fully. I have let that slide as I am sure you have a good reason for it, but this isn't offering me help to improve the article and what I had asked for initially is assistance and help and only a few you of editors have provided that. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y


 * This is not the place for that discussion. The explanation and discussion are at Talk:Davina Reichman. You have misrepresented what I've said and done, and it's not the first time. You have also disregarded every bit of advice regarding the addition you made. Please read advice until you understand it. Your edits are becoming disruptive. JFHJr (㊟) 18:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding notability JFHJr What makes a fashion designer "notable"? It is because you say so in many posts that Lo Sordo and Finetti are not notable? In Australia, they are notable, they just don't have wikipedia pages. The fact that someone isn't "noteable" in other countries besides Australia does not mean they are not notable in that country.

For example, why did ConcernedConcernedVancouverite, another editor with the same privileges as you all, remove "COI" in the Being Born Again Couture Fashion show article but they did not remove that in any other place like for example in the Hugh Evans (humanitarian), Davina Reichmann or Anina (model), after I said that I have no relation or do not promote any articles I am editing? Confused.

I meant to say in the post while 2 editors agree on this point, can we see what the 98 or other editors say *before* you delete my edits please.

Reasons being: I can see from comparing the images that Lo Sordo and Fenitti's designs that they are the same or similar etc, but JFHJr would not have that as "proof" because it did not say "influenced", even though I cited a bunch of articles which intimated(?) that Reichmann may have "something to do with" Lo Sordo and Finetti choosing those particular artists to "copy" and make their Australian Fashion Week range out of (and yes, fb is not a source).

Fashion is subjective in some parts, not objective, take the designer houses "Louboutin vs YSL" case which was fought in court, so that is why I asked initially that could anyone please find someone that knows fashion and that can comment on fashion to assist.

Domenico.y (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
 * Take it to the talk page - no one is discussing edits here.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 20:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:GNG - She gets significant coverage in reliable sources already in article. Rednevog (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Her coverage is mostly in regards to iClothing, which may be notable. But she doesn't WP:INHERIT that notability. JFHJr (㊟) 06:22, 4 October 2011 (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.