Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Alexandra Dupré


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. Nominator was neutral, everyone else has good enough reasons to warrant a keep. Nom has also given me permission to close here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Alexandra Dupré

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Personality that will be notable for only a short period of time. Listed as requested on the talk page. Precedents abound for deletion. Calwatch (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, despite the fact that I am the proposer for deletion, I am only listing because some people on the talk page want it listed but have no clue on the process, as such, I am officially neutral, just stating standard objections to the articles about the person in their 15 minutes of fame above. Calwatch (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep She is one of the most famous women on the planet now - known and discussed in every country. Compare Christine Keeler, Mandy Rice-Davies and Monica Lewinsky.  Colonel Warden (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, definitely meets the notability threshold. Article is well-sourced and neutral. I'm working on expanding it now. Nesodak (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly notable--the subject of articles in the NY Times, for example; popular singer as measured by downloads (yes, I know...). JJL (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable enough to me! TheProf | Talk 01:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. --Pixelface (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Please read the Wikipedia Guideline regarding Notability, which states: "Notability is not temporary.  If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Anyone who has been the subject of front page articles in the New York Times and countless other publications will always be notable. At the very least, she will always be the answer to a trivia question, and most likely she will have a much larger presence than that.  Those who claim that she lacks notability are really just expressing their disapproval of her morals. Steve913 (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:BLP1E says "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." I don't think that applies here because I would not consider this individual "low profile." --Pixelface (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep If Divine Brown is notable enough for an article for her assignation with Hugh Grant a decade or so ago I don't see how less can be expected of Dupre. Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2008 (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.