Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lise Watier


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Lise Watier

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete Zero indications of notability. No references. No attempt at writing a decent article, has been this way for 8 years! Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 14:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS added during this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Every morning   (there's a halo...)  14:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 08:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 08:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep and flag for improvement. The article definitely needs to be expanded and properly referenced, but even a cursory Google News search reveals that a WP:GNG-passing volume of coverage, about both the company and its namesake founder, very definitely exists to salvage it with. GNG is not purely a question of whether the article is already well-sourced or not — it's a question of the depth and quality of sources that can be found, not just the depth and quality of sources that are already present in the article as written. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment it's unclear whether the article is about a person or a company. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, there's a claim of notability here, but no evidence of it.  PK T (alk)  19:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is also established through the awards for the company's products, as shown in this old revision. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep more than sufficient coverage, albeit material dating from the 80s and 90s won't come up in some searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Solid coverage over a long period of time. And turning into a nicely done entry, too. Thanks to all who contributed. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a well-known brand. SarahSV (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment While there are many references to the person, Lise Watier, this article is about the company founded by the person. Many of the Keep !voters above appear to say there are loads of references but none have produced any that meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. The book references are about the person, not the company. Other references that have been placed in the article are based on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. Can anyone post a link to a reference about the company that meets the criteria for establishing notability? If you can, please do so here. The awards mentioned by listed in the old version are trivial and also fail the criteria. Comments by  that there's been solid coverage over a long period of time isn't backed up by simply providing a single link that meets the criteria for establishing notability and could merely indicate a good PR and marketing department. All that said, the comment by  that material from the 80s and 90s won't necessarily show up in searches has some weight but I still would expect to see at least some indication that *the company* is notable. Perhaps this article should be turned into an article on the person - she easily passes WP:BASIC?  HighKing++ 19:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, WP:SIGCOV of the corporation has been added to the page during this discussion, by me and by other editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've struck my nomination already but I am still of the opinion that the person has more significant coverage and the company is a lesser topic.  HighKing++ 14:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Either way works for me. Bio might allow inclusion of a bit more info that I didn't want to shoehorn into the company entry (e.g. about Watier's foundation). FWIW, had I created this entry, I might've erred on the side of organization rather than person because sometimes you see bios criticized on the grounds that if a person is most famous for her work with one company (or musical group or whatever), she should be described under that rubric, absent additional indicia of notability independent of that project. But since here the company and the person share a name, seems tough to make the case that Lise Watier is less well-known than her brand is. (Probably a tough thing to pin down--at this point, for instance, I suspect there are a lot of people who don't really think about Estee Lauder the person when they use Estee Lauder products--and ah indeed, WP currently has the search term "Estee Lauder" landing on a dab. So not the first time it wasn't clear which was the primary term, the person or the eponymous company.)
 * Anyway if there's general agreement that we have encyclopedic material here in one format or another, we can probably move this to the talk page since the entry's title won't need changing. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.