Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simone de Gale


 * 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Simone de Gale

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG in that she has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The creator of the page seems not to have read WP:NOTADVERTISING, as evidenced by the article subject's website listing Wikipedia under "Awards and Accreditations". Lincolnite (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Close discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgePure (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - puffery of unnotable individual. Article creator trying to suppress afd discussion. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep page - meets WP:GNG significant coverage in reliable and independent sources have been listed on the page. Checked WP:NOTADVERTISING, no listing of Wikipedia on website: "Awards and Accreditations".  Expanded on "Early Life" and "Style".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgePure (talk • contribs) 18:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * The user above (JudgePure) has, as of the time of writing, made a total of 31 edits to Wikipedia: 27 to Simone de Gale (including the unauthorized removal of the AfD template), 3 to this page (including blanking it) and 1 to their own user page (the blanking of an AfD template removal warning). It seems the user has a very keen interest in this particular subject, perhaps raising WP:COI questions.
 * This cached version of the Awards and Accreditations page of Simone de Gale's website clearly shows the Wikipedia logo present as recently as January 19 (and I can confirm that it was present on January 31, when I listed the article for deletion). Ms de Gale's website seems to have been edited since then to remove the reference. A cynic might link that action to JudgePure's statement above referencing "no listing of Wikipedia on website", adding fuel to COI concerns. Lincolnite (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: User (Lincolnite) I am new to contributing to Wikipedia and its format, but can contribute where I like. No WP:COI here, just stating the facts.  I have expanded Ms de Gale's page and the work is notable with scope in science and architecture.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC) *Keep - Added reliable sources independent of the subject. Car4tea (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC) (Blocked Sock)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lincolnite (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lincolnite (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lincolnite (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

*Comment: The closing admin should be highly suspicious of the comments and edits made by the unsigned user  198.58.162.176 (talk). This is a new account which was created seven days ago, yet still the user seems to be an expert on editing Wikipedia pages, perhaps with knowledge one could only gain over several years. Most of this person's contribution has been spent on editing the subject of this discussion. Is this a particular special interest in the IP user above to close this page? I have gone through and made additional contributions from reliable sources on the subject. The subject meets WP:GNG. The sources are UK national media and international organisations referring to the work of the subject. Car4tea1 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC) (Previously Car4tea) (Blocked Sock)
 * Delete. The refs provided are either routine biography pages or junky trade magazines. References are therefore not wide, independent and of high quality-- in fact they are of very low quality. Additionally, this person's claim to fame is that she a) has an architecture practice and b) invented a single material that resists blasts, both of which are fairly normal items without significant (Think The Guardian) sources to back them up. Without these significant references, the coverage is basically routine. The subject therefore does not meet WP:GNG. I did trim some of the advertorial language from the article, but it is still a thin article notability-wise. The closing admin might want to take notice of the red-linked SPAs above that seem to have a special interest in this page.198.58.162.176 (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)  198.58.162.176 (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Commment wow, lots of gaslighting going on here! "Most of this person's contribution has been spent on editing the subject of this discussion." Sorry, false news-- are you maybe actually Donald trump? ! I have editided dozens of different articles, objectively and correctly. Car4tea is obviously the article subject, and has reverted the good edits I made to the article to bring it closer to Wikipedia standard. I am indeed 198.58.162.176, as it seems my router reset overnight. note that as 198.58.162.176, I had a diversity of editing interests. Let's also note that car4tea/Car4tea1 is likely the article subject, and has a singular editing interest. Have a nice day. 198.58.160.8 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, you are abusing the Wikipedia website by deleting factual content which meets WP:GNG, which has been contributed by a number of persons. You have also accused me of being the subject of this discussion, which is entirely untrue. May be you have a strong connection with the person who added this topic to the AfD forum. Highly likely. This however is abuse of the subject and the facts of their work. This is not a website owned by you, where you can do whatever you want, it is owned by Wikipedia and you are abusing the system. The unsigned contributions should be immediately dismissed, as well as their vote, as this person has no intention of revealing their identity and is abusing the system. I, however, have edited a number of pages in a factual and helpful way. Car4tea1 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC) (Blocked Sock)
 * Yeah, I can see that you have edited two different pages. I guess two different pages amounts to "several". About fifteen edits to Simone de Gale pages, and two small edits to another page. What you say is very inaccurate gaslighting. In any case, I am sure this page for a non-notable person will be deleted soon, so it's not much use edit warring or wasting our breath here. Only significant references will save this article, and they do not exist. 198.58.160.8 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

*Clearly, you are just an abusive person with no morals or decorum. Maybe if you revealed your identity, people would actually take you seriously. Why are you here anyway? I am certain the contributions I have made, along with other people will retain the subject's page, along with other pages I have edited.
 * Note to closing admin: Ignore all abusive actions taken by unsigned contributor with own personal agenda attached to this discussion.Car4tea1 (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC) (Blocked Sock)
 * Comment From your contribs I see that you have edited three or four different pages total. Nice try (Simonne?). 198.58.160.8 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This person is crazy and clearly is obsessed with the subject of this discussion. All comments and contributions from this person should be ignored.  It's a shame we can not verify their location. Car4tea1 (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

*Go away you abusive person, you can't even reveal your identity. You seem to be the only one going to lengths to delete this page with your new anonymous ID, as you can see, generally, no one is really that concerned. It's been listed for weeks! And a few people have contributed, including me, to improve the subject page, and all you are doing is insulting me and throwing accusations towards me. And you are the only one 'vociferously' trying to delete the page. Get a life. Car4tea1 (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC) ::You are a liar. I have edited numerous pages besides this page. I have been coaxed into an argument with an abusive anonymous IP user, hence the reason for striking out their comment. You will probably have noticed the IP user is a new and suspicious account, solely focused on this AfD discussion. And yes, if you check their references, they do meet WP:GNG Car4tea1 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC) (Blocked Sock)
 * Keep Topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Politekid (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Politekid has been blocked as a sockpuppet.
 * Sockpuppeting is very likely going on here. What could have been a routine discussion has turned into several editors vociferously supporting an article of quesitonable notability.198.58.160.8 (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - the sourcing does not constitute significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. Also note that a major contributor to the article (with few edits outside this subject) has tried to suppress the discussion on this page by striking out contributions from IP editors (whose arguments have exactly the same weight as anyone else's). --bonadea contributions talk 12:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:GNG not met. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Socketpuppeting is very likely going on here. The user Lincolnite has become inactive since nominating this article for deletion.  Yet, an unidentified new IP user, has vociferously argued with false analysis and deletion of reliable sources on the page, to delete the subject page.  I have raised an investigation into the IP use.  The IP user's tone and decorum has been a complete exaggeration, and indication of desperate acknowledgement to the detriment of the subject page.  Almost acting with an obsession of the subject.  I have checked the references on the subject page and they meet WP:GNG.  The IP unsigned user has tried vociferously to delete and suppress these references on the subject page.Car4tea1 (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've got your message, now knock it off and let the discussion run its course. Don't be disruptive. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Check your facts before you speak. How dare you tell me to knock it off. Who the hell are you? Do you think you own Wikipedia or something?Car4tea1 (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Blocked Sock
 * I'm not being rude - I'm trying to save you from yourself. If you want this article to be kept, the best thing you can do right now is spend your time improving the article instead of arguing with everyone who posts here. Drop the stick. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I have edited and added links to this page, and all this anonymous IP user has done is delete the references and edits. I have reported them anyway, as of course, this is their conflict of interest. And yes Exemplo347, you should improve the page also, instead of being quick to act.Car4tea1 (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Blocked Sock
 * You've had 19 days to improve the article so I'd hardly say I've been quick to act. I'm not going to argue with you - if you have an issue with a particular editor, take it up with them. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Quick comment, I'll come back to this later if I can: the notability of that award is important; I wonder if better sourcing for the award (here and in the linked article) wouldn't help the case. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If she had won the award, then maybe (if the award itself is notable) but she's on quite a full shortlist. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the Stephen Lawrence thing. As laudable as that trust is, it doesn't seem to have generated much coverage in the press. I'm going to have to go with delete. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not enough coverage in third-party, independent sources. Seems like a bright person with lots of potential but it's WP:TOOSOON at this point. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Definitely delete. This is not a well known, or reputable architect. Infact her own practice shows nearly no impressive self-run projects, let alone ones of interest (which are still not wiki worthy), let alone truly inspiring buildings. There are architects who have tremendous portfolios which are not on Wikipedia, this woman is clearly puffing herself up. Company accounts for her other company are not impressive and show little investment. Anyone can start a company. Delete.(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.210.78 (talk)


 * 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.