Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Odabash (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. Having personal information is not a reason for an AFD nomination. No valid reason for an AFD was given. Nominator is directed to Contact_us_-_Subjects for more information. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Melissa Odabash
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I created this article originally regarding her business - however the article details information on her personal life now which she does not want on there. Rather than listing personal details about the designer can we remove them and create a more company focused bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinaPfifer (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is information that should not be public, please see Contact us - Subjects for the best ways to contact Wikipedia in a way that allows us to deal with this. The mere fact that the subject does not wish things to appear in the article is not necessarily a reason for deletion, though. In any case, I have removed the "early life" section, which did not seem relevant (but sources for the date of birth might be re-used if it continues to be a point of disagreement with editors). —Kusma (t·c) 15:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The subject seems significantly notable, per my rudimentary research. Anyway, the nominator is not arguing for deletion of the article, but purely for deletion of certain sections. While I would prefer a humane approach in BLPs, the current state of this BLP is acceptable, especially after Kusma's edits.  Lourdes  16:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG, as even the most cursory search shows. Looking at NinaPfifer's contributions, the text of the article they created in 2007, and the statement "the article details information on her personal life now which she does not want on there", we can reasonably infer that this editor at least has a conflict of interest, and may well be a paid editor. The 2007 article was about Odabash, and was a promotional hagiography. As an interesting aside, the 2007 article had her born in 1967, later versions had 1970, and various editors since have tried to maintain this 1970 fiction, even though she was actually born in 1964. Edwardx (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:18, 4 December 2017 (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.