Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tricia Raikes (2nd 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 no consensus. Given this is the 2nd nomination, and this AfD has been relisted twice, I'm closing this as no consensus thus defaulting to keep. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Tricia Raikes
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no indication that the principal notability is nort derived from her husband. "Director, Creative Services, Marketing Communications" is director of a section of a section of a large organization, not a high level executive position. Awards from local  journals are not reliable sources for notability--significant national level awards are needed. Wjhite House Champion for Change is not a significant award, just an opportunity for PR.  DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP last month and simply none of this suggests the necessary solid independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  03:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Tricia Raikes participants who have not commented here:, , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Why is this article up for deletion again less than 10 days after the first deletion discussion ended in keep? Meets WP:GNG criteria. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - from the time of the editathon when this entry was created to the present I have expressed concerns about the notability of this person's entry. The citations do not support notability. The description of her work, while commendable, is not establishing notability. With all due respect, the subject of entry as presented is not establishing notability well enough to kept. -- BrillLyle (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Hmlarson and [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tricia Raikes]. In a sea of women famous only for their looks, finally one notable for brains. Time to drop the stick here.   Montanabw (talk)  22:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 23:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG as is and subject is the co-founder of a foundation, and recognized for various endeavors. I am unsure why DGG is so upset about PR. If someone merits press attention, by definition he or she is notable (for whatever reason). An award that merits press attention is most likely important, too. Being recognized by the Executive Branch of the United States is actually pretty significant. Like, I am also dismayed that this article was relisted so quickly. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:26, 4 May 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.