Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah Lippmann

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Lippmann[edit]

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

Non-notable "celebrity manicurist" lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete - laughably non-notable, completely lacking any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the subject of nail polish US magazine is an excellent source. futurebird (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:HEY, and WP:BARE. There is one single story on a reliable source, the New York Times that was found and added after the discussion started. Sorry, but US magazine is not a reliable source, and is written by a bunch of dunces who don't know the English language. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Her work in fashion, her influence in make-up and her line of nail polishes are well documented, well known and deserve an article. futurebird (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Obvious coverage in reliable sources. Systemic bias is not an argument for deletion. Rebecca (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She had a 2-page 1995 profile in the New York Times [1]. Novickas (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than meets the two-source requirement. Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Colour me surprised. But the subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including some where she is the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 132 G news items. Some with her as the main subject. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely notable and verifiable through reliable sources, which says a bit about our media, but there you have it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced for a such a narrow topic of contemporary interest. She's a businesswoman and entrepreneur who creates new products in addition to being a beauty professional. Any kind of biographical data (date of birth, birthplace, schooling) would be good additions, however. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:51, 18 November 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.