Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Hall (3rd nomination)

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. J04n(talk page) 10:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Hall

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

Recreated after being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Hall (2nd nomination). No evidence of meeting WP:NMODEL Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedy) Is there any reason for this not to be a CSD G4, i.e. is the article substantially different from that deleted through the previous AfD? The references, such as they are, look like they were probably available in the previous article which concluded with deletion. No further evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what the last article was like, but I suspect there's nothing substantially different. This version was nominated for speedy deletion by User:FunnyPika, but that was as a G7, and it was removed by another editor. Boleyn (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Appearing (probably topless) on page 3 of the Sun is I think clear evidcne that she is NN. If she were notable, the article would say something substantial about her. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Going to try and gut it and source it (if possible) - but just to note that it's not G4able. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nope, I've got nothing. Doesn't meet notability criteria. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that her appearing on the 3rd page of a tabloid, a specific tabloid at that, is mentioned twice in the article, seems to indicate she has done nothing truly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I am thinking some of the other people listed in the Page 3 idol section are also not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (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.