Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Amanda Eliasch (2nd nomination)

Reopening AfD
I am reverting the obviously good faith reopening of this AfD by Tutelary on the grounds that to the best of my knowledge only an Admin can unilaterally reopen a closed AfD with the usual method of contesting being a deletion review. See WP:BADNAC. Also vexatious nominations are clear grounds for a speedy keep per WP:SK subsection 2 which I cited in my !vote at the top of the AfD. I don't want to step on any toes here so if there is a disagreement I am open to discussion. Sometimes I miss things -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NACD, Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. I believe that if the SPA/SOCK votes are discounted, and the fact that this afd has been the target of them, then the decision may be in fact controversial and considered a 'close call'. Tutelary (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are certainly within your right to disagree with an AfD closure. But as far as I can tell you can't arbitrarily reopen it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I will invoke WP:BOLD and WP:IAR not as an excuse for not following it, but as a reason. I had not known that only admins can reopen a closed afd, and I will heed that in the future. In any case, Davey reopened it. Tutelary (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. I have zero doubts you were acting in good faith. But we have wiki-mess here and we need to sort it out. I posted a quick note over at ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is certainly good that the AfD has been reopened. I stumbled upon this page when reviewing today's AfDs and was immediately struck by the incredible sock puppeting going on in this case.  It will indeed be tricky for the admin to discern what is going on here.  After a thorough review, I standby my original !vote of deletion.PotassiBot (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

After re-reading I remain confident in my assessment and agree with what other users have said - the subject is not noteworthy for an encyclopaedic article at all. The references are mostly indirect and the production of an amateur movie and a complex divorce are not grounds for notability. Asserts WP:BIO and fails and so fails WP:GNG. Along with the reasons mentioned this article has WP:SELFPROMOTION. I have noticed that the article has been flagged on multiple occasions for multiple issues such as COI and weasel words - these improvement flags have been hastily removed by one of the author's sockpuppets. Aromavic (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)