This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 06:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keeley, outside of the Page 3 girl fame, is not notable enough to have her own entry on Wikipedia. The lack of verifiable data also renders this page worthless. Unless she's done something of notability, the entry on the Page 3 girl article regarding Keeley is sufficient. Also, grounds for deletion should also include this article being one of vanity. Thus, delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 00:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain. Would like to see this article expanded before casting a final vote. —RaD Man (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've not been able to find any via any Google searches. (Maybe she's known by another name?) In any event, I'm notifying the user who created the page that the article has been VfD'ed. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 00:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not averse to Page 3 girls having an article if there is something to say about them, but (as Joe Beaudoin Jr. says), there is nothing useful about her on Google so it is hard to see this article being expanded into something worth having. Would be willing to change my vote if the page is given some more useful information though.
• Delete No notability established. --TheMidnighters 00:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Easy to look at; hard to establish notability. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fernando hansamurai 飯侍 (burp) 00:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The article's content is much the same as that of Anna Taverner was before the latter was deleted. Might be worthy of an article, but it would have to be better than this to merit a keep vote. Flowerparty ^talk 01:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being a Page 3 girl is not enough in itself unless she has done other things to become notable. Capitalistroadster 03:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I believe that this page can be expanded and that there is no need to delete it for the time being7121989
• Delete — nn — RJH 20:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have to give articles time to expand. -- Crevaner 20:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As noted by multiple voters, simply being a Page 3 girl is not encyclopedically notable. Quale 22:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She is so sexy. Wikipedia needs more sexy girls. I'm serious. We have too many articles on SQL servers and Linux hashes. We need more sex. Please keep this. She is the sexiest girl I've seen in a long time.--Muchosucko 07:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep and Expand. Ashmodai 10:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• For the reasons that I gave in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anna Taverner, which apply here too, Delete. Uncle G 13:53:54, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
• Delete for same reasons other page 3ers were. -R. fiend 15:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• MERGE into List of Page 3 girls 132.205.3.20 21:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no real claim to notability.--Pharos 04:19, 28 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.