Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Lee Ettinger

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. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Lee Ettinger

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - non-notable internet performer. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Whilst her works may be notable and subject to reliable third-party sources, she is not. SplashScreen (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has managed to remain at least somewhat in the public eye for five years now. See her coverage from the last month at Google News. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Trivial mentions on 'The Hollywood Gossip' blog and the Fox News opinion pages don't amount to notable coverage. Also see WP:LOCALFAME; being "somewhat in the public eye" is subjective. SplashScreen (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Not just an Internet performer (that wouldn't be a disqualification even if true). Extensive coverage in various mainstream references. Does not fail WP:GNG (non-trivial coverage), WP:BIO (especially since "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability") and WP:ENT (multiple roles in films etc.--which nominator admits are notable). RCraig09 (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO due to non-trivial coverage (as mentioned earlier). She fails WP:ENT because it asks for the subject to have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". The subject has appeared in one notable YouTube video and has made minor cameo appearances or popped up as a non-notable talking head on a few TV shows (always in relation to the aforementioned YouTube video). See WP:SINGLEEVENT. SplashScreen (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes the GNG with non-trivial mentions in several newspapers, including the New York Times. The Steve 10:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is a blog on the New York Times website that discusses the subject's voting at the 2008 U.S. election. Not only is it a trivial and frivolous piece ("NEWSFLASH: CITIZEN DOESN'T VOTE") but it only discusses the subject in relation to I Got a Crush... on Obama. She is not notable outside of that video. SplashScreen (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are nine NYT articles. Also, City Room® is a news blog of live reporting, features and reader conversations about New York City. It is a regular columnist, Jennifer 8. Lee, who wrote it, so I don't think its quite as unreliable as your average blog. Its more of a hybrid, which we are likely to see much more of in the future. The Steve 02:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; there are nine articles. Most of which are trivial or frivolous mentions this and this, for just two examples) and all discuss the subject in relation to I Got a Crush... on Obama. You still haven't established how she is independently notable outside that video, her notability is WP:NOTINHERITED simply because she was in the video. SplashScreen (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need. From WP:EVENT: In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. - I consider her significance in the Obama video and related coverage to be high enough that an article on her should be kept. You are free to disagree, of course. The Steve 04:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update to my earlier Strong Keep. Gentlemen, gentlemen. I've improved the referencing of the article. Categorically, Ettinger is not known "only" for her 2007 video (FYI: there were over thirty Obama Girl videos). That video was her "big break" so it's understandable that references will continue to mention it, but that doesn't negate ongoing notable developments, including: ● her modeling (verified in Maxim reference), ● her music (verified in Wired reference), ● her beauty contests (verified in Hooters reference), ● her moving on to parody technology (verified in the NYTimes article "'Obama Girl' Team Retools for Technology Parody ") ● etc. . . . Furthermore: ✷ The 2012 "Glease" video, referenced in the June 2012 Fox News Hannity interview and others, ✷ the Gordon Fox News article's citing of Ettinger's indecision in an opinion piece on national defense, and ✷ the widespread re-reporting of Ettinger's indecision from the Daily Caller--all prove that, regardless of your personal opinion, Ettinger is perceived by numerous reliable references to be a barometer of public opinion on Obama in 2012. This Wikipedia article can be improved through research and referencing, but should not be deleted. RCraig09 (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as an actor whose work has been widely discussed in the media. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.