Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Kaufmann


 * 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   keep. While 'keeping' this AfD, I'll make a mention of WP:BLPEDIT which we should take note of before admonishing the ip/editor attempting to blank out information. At the same time, I am leaving a note on the ip's page for support in case she wishes her BLP deleted.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  10:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Michelle Kaufmann

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

BLP that has been subject to a lot of COI editing by its subject. She's currently engaged in an edit war to try to remove unflattering material that has cited references. Notability seems pretty marginal, but there is a little coverage out there. I think we should consider deletion in this case of a marginally notable person who has a problem with the article as a neutral encyclopedia article. Gigs (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

*Delete - questionable notability, although presence of secondary sources precludes CSD:A7. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep per Cullen328; brief literature review supports notability, although Realkyhick raises valid concerns as well. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This architect is clearly notable as she has received a significant amount of coverage in recent years. I read several articles about her before becoming a Wikipedian.  She has had business setbacks due the recession, so there are biography of living person concerns about how to accurately characterize the winding down of her modular housing venture.  Those concerns should motivate careful editing, not deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep We do not delete articles merely because the subject of the article doesn’t like them. Also, we have absolutely no evidence that the IP-only editor was in fact the subject of the article. We only know that it was someone claiming to be her. It may very well have just been a vandal or a POV-pusher. Otherwise, my rationale for keep is per Cullen328 above. —  Spike Toronto  03:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cullen328 and SpikeToronto.   —  Jeff G.  ツ  03:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Week delete. This article reeks of self-promotion, and most of the references are primary (controlled by the subject). It might could be fixed, but not with the edit war going on now. I strongly suspect this article was created by the subject. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Article already contains adequate secondary sources to meet our notability guidelines. The COI/promotional issues are not a reason for deletion in this case. VQuakr (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not saying that she necessarily fails notability, or that the current state of the article is a reason in itself to delete. But when you have someone who isn't particularly notable who has a problem with an encyclopedic article about them, I think we should consider deletion as a courtesy to them, and as a practical matter. Gigs (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. However, if the presumption that the two editors who have been deleting less-than-flattering sections of the article are in fact the subject of the article, there are much better and more effective ways of having the article either properly edited or, if necessary, removed. WP:BLPSELF covers the process and options. In the meantime, though, I think Cullen328 spells out the primary issues regarding the article itself, pending any direct (and verified) request from Ms. Kaufmann herself to have the article removed. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: The discussion of the actions of was deferred to here in this edit with Edit Summary "98.248.141.18 - let AFD decide the matter", and I have reproduced it below.  I have already invited the user here.  Also,  was blocked for similar behavior 14:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC) and has an unblock request pending at User talk:Col98umbus.    —  Jeff G.  ツ  17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Copied from AIV 
 * – vandalism, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 – —  Spike Toronto  02:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Autobiographer per the Edit Summary for this edit.   —  Jeff G.  ツ  03:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * IP-only editor claiming to be subject of article, and is removing material that s/he does not consider flattering. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  03:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article in question, Michelle Kaufmann, is the subject of Articles for deletion/Michelle Kaufmann.   —  Jeff G.  ツ  04:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, we have no evidence that the IP-only editor actually is the subject of the wikiarticle. Even so, since when do we allow the subject of an article to extract large tracts of content because they don’t like it? At the very least this is disruptive editing. —  Spike Toronto  04:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: I am Michelle Kaufmann. I have been trying to revise a few sections of this page. Not because they are not flattering, but rather because they are untrue. There was no bankruptcy. That is completely false. The company closed, but there was no bankruptcy, so that title should be deleted. I do not work with mkDesigns or Blu Homes, so that part should be deleted. I did not add the 5 eco principles, and another company is not wanting me to talk about 5 eco principles (and they are probably the ones to have added it to this page), so I request that part be deleted. It is not unflattering, just not needed. I am barely notable, and request the entire page just be deleted completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.141.18 (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have retitled that section since the source doesn't say anything about bankruptcy per-se. Gigs (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding mkDesigns and Blu homes, there's plenty out there on the web that does seem to indicate you are associated with them. Like this. It even quotes you talk about how happy you are to be working with them. Gigs (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As I wrote on your user talk page, please review Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). Thank you.    —  Jeff G.  ツ  17:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, if you are serious about wanting this page "deleted completely", you should have no problem with making the link "Michelle Kaufmann wikipedia page" disappear from your page "http://michellekaufmann.com/about/".   —  Jeff G.  ツ  03:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Sometime ago, there was a deletion discussion regarding a wikiarticle on the British artist, Ashley West, in which I participated. (See here.) At that time, there were two issues: verifiability and notability. Regarding verifiability, everything that was said about him was verifiable from the listings that accompanied gallery showings, but a great deal of the material came from the artist’s website and CV, not the best sources. Regarding notability, if those were the only sources with material about the artist, and there were no reviews, write-ups, etc., about his work, then was he notable? At that point, I personally wrote the artist enquiring whether he had any clippings of reviews, etc., from his shows. I received back from him that he really did not want the article on Wikipedia as he did not think he was that notable, and that the article had been put up by some appreciative students. (I believe that an OTRS ticket was created for the email.) Did his not wanting the article on Wikipedia mean that it got deleted? Short answer : No. It got deleted because the dearth of independent, third-party articles about him meant that he was not sufficiently notable. Long answer : His not wanting the article on Wikipedia would not have gotten the article deleted by itself. However, coupled with the dearth of independent, third-party material about him, deletion was ensured. —  Spike Toronto  05:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is the architect Michelle Kaufmann, subject of this wiki page. Someone brought the current state of the wiki page to my attention a few days ago, and i saw what I believed to be violations on the policies of living people, so I tried to edit the page to what I believed to be truthful information. I did so without reading the various relevant polices on neutral editing. I am now learning so much more on this :) and am consulting with a more experience neutral editor (Cullen328). I am committed to helping gain consensus rather than just doing things "my way" (although "my way" is just so darn tempting). If I can help in anyway, please let me know. Although, the page looks truthful and accurate at this point. Otherwise, if deleting the page completely makes sense to you all, that is fine with me. (and thanks, Jeff G for the heads up on the link from my site to the wiki page. We just deleted it in case you choose to delete this page all together.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkmichelle (talk • contribs) 17:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that the link was deleted is good enough confirmation to me that this really is Kaufmann. Gigs (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Let's move forward on the content issues using subheadings I moved to the article talk page.    —  Jeff G.  ツ  00:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An 'attaboy': Notable or not and delete or not, kudos to the various editors who have worked on this rather difficult case. Y'all have busted your butts on this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)