Jump to content

Talk:Allison Harvard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.252.169.163 (talk) at 07:25, 30 September 2010 (→‎Removal of Internet information). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nous Model Management

On the Tyra Show, Allison was offered a contract with Nous Model Management, but she just said that she might accept it. It shouldn't be listed as her agency unless there is a source that says that she actually did accept it. 24.6.209.4 (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Definately agree, it needs to be confirmed before added - there have also been rumours that she is also signed to elite models but i think we should wait until she appears on their site or at least on one of her offical sites. LuvLei(talk) 08:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as short as it was, I know she got signed once though I think she might have ended the representation already. If you go to the site she's no longer on the list of represented models under women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.10.116 (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celia

Do you think that there should be any mention of the friendship Allison made with Celia Ammerman (as well as Kortnie Coles) on Top Model? It featured frequently on Top Model, so it might be nice to make some mention of it. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

this isn't an article about AMTM cycle 12. Adding a lot of details about the show, doesn't belong. ... MistyWillows talk 22:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so as well. They are still good friends outside of the show now (on her offical facebook, she stated so). I think it should be documented. Analeigh Tipton is still good friends with marjorie and it is on her personal wikipedia page. (LuvLei (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I agree. There is a whole bunch of stuff on here that does not belong. Same with Teyona (though she has less info). I won't be surprised if it's because of her popularity and Teyona's win over her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.58.171 (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Original Research" Reverted

Misty, while this section falls under OR, it is also supported by several direct sources (which were referenced on the page). What's the problem? I won't revert until you comment.

I'm not sure if it is entirely an issue of WP:OR, but sourcing "outrage" on blogs/forums is not something I would consider conforming to a WP:BLP, and hence I agree with its removal. In addition, I would say this is more relevant to the show than to the individual. Plastikspork (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was applying this statement from WP:OR: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Since the forums are the primary-source, you did an original analysis. ... MistyWillows talk 20:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Internet information

The removal of crucial information, the nomination for deletion, and the constant moronic edits and removals have cemented my leave from this article. Do what you want. Wikipedia, you disappoint me.Antitab (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Crucial information? What, that pictures of her circulated on 4chan? Use reliable sources to build the article, not meme sites, blogs and fan wikis. Fences and windows (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idiots. You moderate a website but require sources in the print media to back up information? So unless something is on a news website (and a 'credible' one at that) its assumed to be lies? 92.30.42.5 (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your tone professional and assume good faith. The guidelines for reliable information do not require it to be in print, but they do require it to be subject to an editorial process and not a secondary source. For examples, an article on the New York Times website or an online bulletin from the World Health Organization would both be considered acceptable sources. However, a blog written by the subject's friend, a website made by a fan of the subject, or an article in this very encyclopedia would all be considered unreliable sources. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

artist

I don't think notability is established for the subject as an artist. Bus stop (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]