Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Frank (3rd nomination)

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. So Why 11:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Frank

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

No individual notability, except for her company, and already covered more than adequately there. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note there are profiles of here in Fast Company [1] and Jezebel [2] Theredproject. (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems relevant that the FC article calls her "notoriously elusive and private" which is likely why we don't have any major biographical profiles. I checked NYT, and there are a dozen+ references. The first is 2000, and then in 2011 it starts again, and there is one or two a year, or so. They name check her without explanation, as if you should know who she is, e.g. "Just a decade or two later, I’m ready to reminisce about Lisa Frank folders and Puff Daddy videos." [3] And, for a certain generation of people (slightly younger than myself) they mostly all do know who she is, and what her work looks like.

I appreciate your logic re: the person being described in the article about the company, but I'm wondering if there are any standards or comparables for something like that. I've been racking my brain trying to come up with any other examples of designers who were 1) reclusive 2) named their companies with their own name. I'm still thinking, but haven't come up with any. Theredproject (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, but Martin Margiela for example? Vexations (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to company. Best covered there. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the two AfDs already completed, it's a bit daft to nominate the article for a third time. The existing reliable sources in the article strongly suggest she had a very high profile in the latter part of the 20th century. We shouldn't be deleting articles about people who have a lower profile in the internet age. All that being said, there are further news articles particularly about Frank on the Lisa Frank Incorporated article. Just because her name happens to be included in the name of her company, doesn't mean they aren't both notable. Sionk (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, as an alternative, keep as its own section at Lisa Frank Incorporated, as is done with the company founder at Transogram.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If ,the kept, the necessary next step will be to remove the material about her from the company article--it's presently about40% of the content. Duplication like this is indicative of promotionalism; even if not intended as such, it is certainly undue coverage. It can be appropriate for very famous companies & their founders, but not those which are only notable, let alone borderline notable /. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2018 (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.