- 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. MER-C 03:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Kim Acourt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are not enough sources to show she is notable. Nothing she has done constitutes a clear pass of notability guidelines for models. The article has been tagged as needing more sources since 2013 and shows no signs of improving. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete playboy and a shitty tabliod do not blp level sourcing make, Spartaz Humbug! 16:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Insufficient indicia of notability. Montanabw(talk) 08:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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.