Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Anne Loew-Beer


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Ricky Anne Loew-Beer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTINHERITED. Of course being married to Lauren allows you to indulge in vanity projects. TheLongTone (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep (on the basis of the motivation of the article appearing to be more genealogical, I can understand why the nominator raised it at AfD) It doesn't do a great service of the subject to make her simply an appendage of her very notable husband. But her book The Hamptons: Food, Family, and History has been widely reviewed, which suggests she is a notable author in her own right. Sionk (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed my !vote to plain ole Keep, if more than one of her books have been widely reviewed. Her other books were pre-internet, so coverage will be harder to find. Meets WP:CREATIVE #4. Sionk (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Merge - She received media attention for her book about RL Ranch in Colorado for New York Times, ABC, etc., but I'm not seeing that the subject meets the WP:AUTHOR guideline. I looked at WP:PEOPLE and WP:GNG and I'm not seeing the subject meetings the guidelines on her own.


 * It would take very little work to merge this into the Ralph Lauren article - much of the content is already there. The LR Ranch book could be linked with the sentence about the ranch in the family section, for instance. Focus on the notable books. And, the additions, IMO opinion, would help round out the Lauren article.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep based upon comments by -- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. It seems to me that with the considerable press coverage on her book, she deserves to have an article in her own right.--Ipigott (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, That may be. One thought, though, kind of a chicken-before-the-egg kind of question. Is the book getting so much press for its own sake, or is it getting so much press because she's the wife of Ralph Lauren and it's basically about his family / family life?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this observation. Whatever the book relates to, the fact remains that it has received considerable attention. I have a feeling that if a male author had achieved such success as a result of a book on his well-known wife, there would have been no discussion on his notability. Wikipedia should aim to include articles on notable individuals in their own right whatever their family relationships.--Ipigott (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. For what it's worth, I did a fair amount of looking into Loew-Beer as I was tidying up the article and I am quite impressed by her. If this wasn't an encyclopedia article, I would quite enjoy writing much more about her. It still doesn't change my vote, but I understand your vote and where you are coming from.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * One afterthought is perhaps there should be an article about the The Hamptons: Food, Family and History and/or Cuisine, Lifestyle, and Legend of the Double RL Ranch books.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * An article about the book(s) would be valid, considering the write ups (though maybe not at the top of everyone's to-do list). If two of her books have received multiple reviews then I might change my !vote to just plain 'Keep'. Sionk (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have started an article about the book regarding the Hamptons. I think the book about the Double RL Ranch may have been self-published. The Library of Congress does not have it, and there's not as much about it as the Hampton book.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As specified in the article, the publisher is Melcher Media. I can't see why you think it was self published, but even if it was, that would not be a reason for questioning its importance or that of its author.--Ipigott (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am a little confused. I was probably typing too much in a stream of consciousness - and what you missed were my thoughts about preferring to write the one about the Double RL Ranch, but I wasn't finding as much about it - and I thought it weird that the book isn't in the Library of Congress. If you put together my response to you + that I am starting an article about one of the books and then come to the conclusion I don't respect the author, I don't know what to say.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to say, this leaves me feeling a bit defeated at the moment about the article about the cookbook. I guess I will come back to it later. If I had disregard for her, why would I touch up her article and Ralph Lauren's article in these changes, where the family had been at the bottom of the article, beneath the automobile collection. As well as the edits that I made to her article? Sorry, just a bit gobsmacked at the moment.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this. No one's accused you of disregarding the subject. Even if they had, it wouldn't be a suitable discussion for here. Sionk (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am collapsing my comments.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Let me understand this nomination, a poor, college drop-out marries a college educated woman who helps him entertain the rich and famous to build his career, , , , has "inherited his fame"? I think rather, she was instrumental in creating the fantasy that became him. Her books, writing about the jet-set life they built, added to his fame, not vice verse. "Ralph found it extremely difficult to get his business venture underway — often turned down, or offered a spot on store shelves if he changed numerous elements of his design. All the while, Ricky stood by Ralph’s side, supporting, cheering, encouraging"...Ralph’s perseverance and Ricky’s unfailing support paid out..." , Plenty has been written about her to satisfy GNG. , , . Though I am not sure that the article shouldn't be titled Ricky Lauren, as that is how her 4 books were published, as well as how most press is styled. SusunW (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the move/name change: Yes, it's also discussed on Talk:Ricky Anne Loew-Beer. Agreed.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep She is clearly notable as has established above. I'd also like to point out that NOTINHERITED only applies if the person has no coverage independent of the person that they are "inheriting" notability from. If there was no coverage about her at all, that would be different. But there is. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There is quite enough coverage for her books. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Let it snow! Hmlarson (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC) To clarify: CLEARLY meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2016 (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.