Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambre Anderson


 * 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   delete. j⚛e deckertalk 07:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Ambre Anderson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Model/actress article with no significant coverage in secondary sources to assert general notability guidelines or WP:NMODEL. Her website's bio is impressive but doesn't claim notability. CutOffTies (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as non notable model. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  01:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep if we are to judge notability by Wikipedia's standards, I come to a different conclusion. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There are at least three secondary sources that address the topic directly. Two of the other sources, I'll admit, are now dead links.  But doesn't "significant", in this context, simply mean that no original research is needed?  I'll check to find what other sources exist, but the under the meaning of "significant coverage" above, I think the article meets Wikipedia's standards.User:Triple3D 20:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note Triple3D's signature links to another user's page. WP:AGF. Fixed I figured out the problem and fixed it.Trip le 3 D  19:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)  I have left message on user's talk page.  May not seem relevant but could affect your view of user's credibility and also relation to article:  has made significant contributors to Ambre Anderson. --CutOffTies (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Quit trolling & change it!. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  01:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I replied on your talk page. --CutOffTies (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I am very concerned by seeing this right now. It seems like another promotional article written by the subject herself. I just did an extensive search on this person and found only one source actually mentioning her BMoreNews. The ABC News source suggests she is so non-notable that it did not even mention her last name. We can not be sure we are talking about the same person., Both these editors have done solid work, and appear to be WP:HERE. The format of the article is extremely promotional, especially the pictures which is formatted in a way meant to promo and was taken by the subject herself. I am refraining from my opinion, based on an explanation from the two editors pinged.  Valoem   talk   contrib  19:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment response There are actually, now, three additional live sources cited in the article: One is from Essence magazine (not an on-line source, but a reference to one of the editions she is featured in; the second is the International Movie DataBase [], which lists a tv show and a movie that she was in; and the third which I just found and added is from TV Guide. Trip le 3 D  19:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, this person is not even close to notable. Her IMDb resume has two credits, article is clearly promotional, photos need to be deleted from Wikicommons. The one source I found appears to not be independent, but it is the only source I found. Even a search through youtube for an interview, comes up empty except a post her made by herself. This goes down the list of what Wikipedia is not. Valoem   talk   contrib  20:29, 19 May 2014 (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.