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 06:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, a Google search has come up with no verifiable means of expanding the entry. Also, the model is an unnotable Page 3 girl that does not merit a page of her own. This is the same issue that exists with the Keeley article. Therefore, the article should be deleted. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Joe. freestylefrappe 02:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete being a Page 3 girl is not notable in itself and a Google search couldn't establish other claims to notability. Capitalistroadster 03:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no standalone encyclopdic value. -Splash 04:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- spike it! DavidH 05:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; Another non-notable that is unlikely to see any significant expansion. Agentsoo 09:38, 26 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.