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. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiera massette

[edit]

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

The author added a ((hangon)) tag to the article after it is was prodded, so I shall take that to mean it as a removal of the prod tag. Nominating this as a procedural nom. The original prod statement was "No indication of notability." NW (Talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did not find significant coverage, and nothing in the article convinces me that I should have found some. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very very saddened delete, because the lady really looks good. On the serious side, though, no verifyable RS are listed and I doubt any could be found. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna go delete here. The Lingerie Bowl doesn't help for WP:ATHLETE, nor does it seem to fall within WP:PORNSTAR. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. --Quarte t 14:03, 29 October 2009 (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.