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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lang[edit]

Lisa Lang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

non notable and promotional. The Forbes listing alone is not enough for notability , and everything else is PR. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable business woman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are interviews with Lang in a number of widely-read sites in different countries, I will add them to the article to help demonstrate notability. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Interviews are not suitable to establish notability. They are not independent of the subject nor are they coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources in this article are...utter garbage, for lack of a better word and this reads like a massive PR piece that I'd expect from the subjects website. I also see no evidence she meets GNG after news search, books etc... Praxidicae (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I guess we have different opinions on what is considered "garbage". The Hindu is a large national newspaper; Deutche Welle is the German equivalent of America's NPR; Eesti Päevaleht is a major Estonian newspaper; Wired is a well-known tech magazine in the US and UK, and Forbes is also a reputable American periodical. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Having forbes in the name doesn't automatically make it a good source. This is useless. It's a profile. It's not coverage, it's not independent. This is mostly an interview, this is a list, this i don't have an opinion on and will leave it for a native speaker, another interview, another interview, basically an interview, not even about Lang, not actual coverage, listicle, not coverage. Even if somehow these were all amazing in depth pieces, the article is rife with bio spam. Praxidicae (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per current sources available. I kind of agree with analysis by Praxidicae. The quality of references are not great, and the ones in reliable sources do not offer much. Some lot of the references contain a quote or two from her. Many of the references are actually referring somewhat to the company, instead of the founder. Being the founder of a notable company could be reasonable claim to notability of course, but there has to be significant coverage, such as about the person's role in founding it, contributions, impact. In this case, there is a dearth of independent third party coverage.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is sufficient independent, reliable, significant coverage - in Aiomag.de, Gründerszene (which I have found and added), the Kitty Knowles article in Forbes - these are about her role in starting the company. Plus there is some less significant or less independent coverage as well (SBS, and the interviews have a para or two about her before the interview questions, plus are serious questions about her work). It's also sustained over several years. AfD is not about the quality of the article, so any "bio spam" that the article is supposedly "rife" with could be removed by any editor who cared to do so. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. The keep suggestions are variations of WP:ILIKEIT and fail to convince. Advertorials, interviews, and the like do not an article make; rather, a brochure. This text appears to be yet another vanity side-project of an entrepreneur. We are being deluged by them of late. -The Gnome (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A lot of her notability seems to hang on Forbes. I was wondering why someone whose notability is about fashion has no articles from the main fashion magazines (e.g. Vogue, Elle, etc.). My impression of fashion is that if something is notable, it gets noted, and fast. On that basis I was leaning to Delete, but then I saw references to Women's Wear Daily (WWD), whose WP article describes it as "the bible of fashion" (I had never head of it). My question is whether her WWD mentions are material? Britishfinance (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Her projects are arguably as much tech as they are fashion because of the integration of the technology. There are a number of references from tech news sources. Wired, Motherboard, SXSW. She also displayed items for Lakme Fashion Week and Berlin Fashion Week, which are well-known. I've actually held back from adding much more material that comes from fashion blogs or sounded promotional. LovelyLillith (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @LovelyLillith: I think you made the right call sticking to the best possible fashion references and avoiding blogs etc. She lives in a world between tech and fashion. Her tech is not notable enough to make her a "real" tech entrepreneur (her LED is not a notable techology), and Forbes articles are a red-herring in this regard. I think she is really LED-tech in fashion (e.g. applied tech), but we get back to the same issue of her strongest fashion reference being WWD? This is very borderline. She is not as un-notable as many other BLPs at AfD, where there is not a single solid RS, but in terms of "several significant independent RS" I feel we are "reaching" for it, which I don't think we should be doing in a BLP? Britishfinance (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If Lang herself is not considered notable, then ElektroCouture probably is. In addition to what's already in the article, there are other sources about the label and clothing - Der Tagesspiegel [1] and [2], Spiegel Online [3], Berliner Zeitung [4], a few paras in a Women's Wear Daily article about Lakme Fashion Week [5]. If this article about Lisa Lang is not kept, please draftify rather than deleting, so it can be revised into one about ElektroCouture. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Having reflected on this per my comments above; case relies on two weak arguements (she is not a clear tech-blp, nor a fashion-blp) trying to combine to make one proper case. She does not have at least two clear strong RS, of which she is the main subject. Britishfinance (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on the discussion above, stressing that interviews are acceptable for sourcing but not for assessing notability. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2019 (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.