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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally marked as a speedy, but since she supposedly "made headlines" I figured it was just enough of an assertion of notability. Otherwise, she seems to be a non-notable model. —Cleared as filed. 04:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't really think that just looking like someone makes you notable. Sure she may have fooled reporters, but does that mean she's encyclopedic? --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per darkness. --Kinu 05:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn junk.Blnguyen 05:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Celebrity impersonators are generally not notable and article does not establish the case that Natalie Reid is. Capitalistroadster 05:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable bio. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any fame she has now is going to go out the window five minutes after everyone forgets about Paris.--み使い Mitsukai 13:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I've heard of her but IMO, being a celebrity lookalike for someone who is "famous for being famous" pretty much define non-notable.--Isotope23 18:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Capitalistroadster Ruby 06:23, 11 February 2006 (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.