Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malene Espensen

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. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malene Espensen[edit]

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 15:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as can be seen from the link above at Google News, she's been a Page Three model at The Star at least twice each in 2007, 2008, and 2009. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But improve, as sources referenced in the article are really weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.195.109.67 (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC) — 132.195.109.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete - a page three modal is not a get yourself a wiki bio gold star guarantee, she is not notable at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G12 Speedy Delete. Once you delete the copyvio from http://www.skins.be/malene-espensen/biography/ (warning for porn content), you'll find there really isn't much left worth saving. Additionally, two sources are nonexistent once you attempt to check them out. Cind.amuse 05:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article contains copyvio text but no indications of substantial third party coverage. I fail to see how appearing topless in a newspaper establishes notability. Sandstein 09:29, 24 April 2011 (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.