Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Riva (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Wendy Riva}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wendy_Riva_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Wendy Riva}})

Renomination following no-consensus close with no-prejudice towards renomination. Non-notable autobiography. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Originally BLP Prod, declined with IMDb ref (which is not a reliable source) and two other refs with trivial mentions. No GNews hits. No GBooks hits other than trivial mentions. No significant GHits that I could find. Looking at the refs, I see the following problems:

• IMDb is not a reliable source and this has been long established on Wiki.
• Elle Decor is a trivial mention of Riva in a article on a boutique.
• International relations is a blog and not reliable.
• R&G Collective is a blog and not reliable.
• Daily Candy is a trivial mention of the store and of Riva.
• Los Angeles Times is a trivial mention of Riva in article on the store closing.
• LA in bloom is a blog and not reliable.
• Huffington is a trivial mention of Riva in a article on boutique.
• CBS Local returns a page not found.
• Stylebeat is a blog and not reliable.
• Whitehouse.gov is a primary source. Additional secondary sources on the position would be needed.
• New York Times does not mention Riva and notability is not inherited.
• Turner is a trivial mention and notability is not inherited.

There might be an argument for R&G Collective, though I doubt it, but Riva just doesn't have the sources to establish general notability, much less to meet the requirements of WP:CREATIVE. GregJackP Boomer! 20:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I didn't see any claims of notability in the article which I was inclined to pursue any further than the excellent and exhaustive work of the nominator -- since I felt it was unlikely that notability would be demonstrated even if the sources were more reliable. This might be worth a redirect to her husband's article at J. Michael Riva but I think deletion is more appropriate. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• KEEP - Primary source is White House website and there are sufficient secondary sources. She has been appointed by the President of United States. So notable for sure. It is not the platform to show any bias towards anybody. -- Bharathiya (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Being appointed by the POTUS doesn't automatically make her notable; key appointees probably, but she doesn't fall into that category. I made a random check on three of her fellow non-key appointees: none have articles. Art directors aren't generally notable either, much less assistant ones. I'm not finding any significant media notice other than the White House announcement. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Clarityfiend. The advisory board for the JFK Center is nice, but that's not multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2012 (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.