Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorraine Schwartz

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. Favonian (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lorraine Schwartz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Non-notable, poorly cited biography of a living person. Bhickey (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC) (Edit: Updated for formatting.)[reply]

Weak Keep The article has been significantly improved and no longer resembles a poorly written advert. (I'll stay out of the notable v. non-notable fray.) --Bhickey (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete BLP article fails WP:BIO and no single instance of notability by association. scope_creep (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You would never know this by reading the current article, but Schwartz actually is one of the most prominent diamond designers in America. I think she passes WP:ARTIST as well as general Notability guidelines. See, for example, these stories about her on NPR and in InStyle: 'The Queen Of Bling' Preps For The Oscars and Lorraine Schwartz and this gallery article about her Lorraine Schwartz the Queen of Bling --Crunch (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per User:Crunch - this is a top-level ~~jewellery~~ sorry, jewelry designer with a stellar clientele. Although google is a blunt tool, she gets 19,000+ ghits - not much personal information around, but her notability is based on her work. HeartofaDog (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails to indicate notability. Carrite (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that: Keep - There are craploads of Google hits for "Lorraine Schwartz jewelry" — it's a pity this article is so terrible. Rescue, please!!! Carrite (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete what makes her notable? There are plenty of "stellar" designers in the world with clientele rich or famous. One can always mention her in the article for the song, at any rate there are no refs. Should we mention anyone the celebs work with?(Lihaas (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC));[reply]

Comment As I mentioned in my vote above, the article doesn't mention what makes her most notable. This doesn't mean that notability doesn't exist. It requires a little searching. You can see the results of the search above. The criteria for deleting Wikipedia articles should not be how well the article is written but how notable the subject is. --Crunch (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Crunch, who has identified examples of significant independent coverage in reliable sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've gone ahead and added a number of sources from mainstream media, formatted the article so that it looks much nicer, and also added a history section with some of her backstory. I hope that's enough to convince others of her notability, because it is more than enough for me. Silver seren^C 19:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the 'queen of bling' is indeed quite notable, and the sourcing looks adequate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news shows results. She is a notable enough jeweler that famous people give her two million dollars to design a diamond wedding ring for them, and gets additional coverage as well. Dream Focus 21:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A pointless and trivial person, but she has been noticed.Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very successful businesswoman with many celebrity clients. With 19 inline citations, this article should no longer be a stub. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regardless of how people feel about celebrity and fashion, this person has indeed been covered in third-party sources that can explain how and why this person is notable. Fortunately we have guidelines that help us get away from elitist discussions of who is worthy or not. We always see what the sources have said. If it's something, then we cover it. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements that show this individual meeting WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not to be restricted to rock stars, politicians, or sports heroes. If an individual has the persistant and ongoing coverage that shows them to be worthy of note, then they are worthy of note. That what the GNG was set up to establish. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The multiple sources prove notability. And if Elizabeth Taylor, the Queen of Hollywood Glamour has worn this subject's jewellry then she must be reputable in her field.. Dr. Blofeld 11:50, 4 September 2010 (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.