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 but needs a thorough rewrite. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Kim[edit]

Elaine Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A fashion designer written up by user:Seireeni who is Kim's husband, Richard Seireeni. (Richard has also written about his own company at brand architect.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite She may have some coverage in reliable sources. Check Google News for "Elaine Kim" fashion; though many of the sources are not available to me. The article as it is written is unacceptable, however, and definitely violates conflict of interest and is probably largely original research. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• References to the author have been removed. Seireeni (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Richard Seireeni[reply]
  • Comment Article still needs a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic; it's written in promotional terms and is questionable for that reason. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional NY Times article describing 'Product' label was found and added. 216.244.32.116 (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Seireeni[reply]

Hello all. I've rewritten the piece, removing flourishing language making it more style neutral. I've added additional links to support subject covered in the text, and added a bit more detail. I would ask you to consider posting the entry and then allowing the community to add further amendments and support as it becomes available.

Seireeni (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC) SEIREENI[reply]

• Keep. Added references (especially one from NY Times) show notability. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Needs to be rewritten from the point of view presented in the reliable sources that actually show notability of the subject. The article as it is now is little more than a resume with references that show notability added on to the end. --Ronz (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.