Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Sym

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. Sandstein 06:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Sym

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly an in detail. No claim of notability or significance; does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Article is cited to blogs, interviews, and online directories. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, minor and trivial work and interest. Kierzek (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though I ran into the article by accident and attempted to correct what was there, in the end it adds nothing, as the only 'noteworthy' thing she has done is being one of the many Playboy bunnies. The latter can be found on a single Playboy page as well, for those who are interested.Forage (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia has been criticized for having way too many articles on pornographic actresses. Sym might not quite qualify as such, but the over coverage of women who have been feautured in certain publications such as the one she is mentioned in the lead as having been in, is part of the same generalized problem of the choices made on who to have articles on in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The solution is to write more articles on other subjects, not to delete ones to meet some arbitrary quota based on moral objections. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:43, 14 November 2017 (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.