Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyra Augustina (third 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 of the debate was keep, which was the majoriry opinion both before and especially after discounting invalid votes. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Keyra Augustina
This nomination was made by an anonymous user. I've tried to fix it. The article was deleted once on AfD and the second AfD was cut short after it was realized that it had been deleted before. However, I believe that she might be notable for an article. She has a lot of non-duplicate Google page results and about 100 image results. She has also appeared in Maxim magazine. -- Kjkolb 10:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It may be of a sexual nature but the person has clearly had an impact on society as she has had numerous mentions in popular culture on the internet, TV and magazines - appeared in not just Maxim but FHM. Both major worldwide publications and not to be shirked at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashiro (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. She's hot.  That's not my reason to keep, but it never hurts to point it out. Proto t c 12:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep DCEdwards1966 17:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Indecent exposure. And if you think this reason is bad, then please read the above! --Kilo-Lima 17:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Saccerzd 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC) She is relatively well-known on the internet, is featured on Maxim meagazine's website and has 500+ google images related to her. Definitely keep!
 * Keep &#8212; again. jareha 21:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &#8212; As you [most] have stated, it is definitely worth being kept! ;o) Isn't she so lovely? (and doesn't she seem smart considering her studies...?) In my opinion these two photos are less provocative than these RAP TV clips or album covers we see everyday, aren't they? For heaven's sake keep it. Williams 0:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.237.3.53 (talk • contribs)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep : She is not indecent, just hot ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.122.190.156 (talk • contribs)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep : Her article has merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.2.116.249 (talk • contribs)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. She definitely has the notoriety and the article is an encyclopedic survey of her accomplishments to date. I imagine that Ms. Augustina will go on to even greater heights, perhaps in academia or business, once she receives her diploma. -- JJay 02:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.40.242.22 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --user's first edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Delete as non-notable biography. Couldn't find relevant. QuidditchBall 11:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)--user's second edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- very non notable,Linkspam. Dafalgan 15:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-enciclopedic,not good for wikipedia. Phyloo 16:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. She is as worthy of an article as any other model. 206.201.180.226 18:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted due to anonymous editor. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think that some here are saying she is not notable simply because she is not famous. There is a distinction and just because she is not as familiar to the general public as say Cindy Crawford, that does not mean she is less signifigant as a model worthy of an entry on this site.  She has appeared in one of the world's formost men's magazines in Maxim, has been featured on many sites such as gorrilamask and ifilm and is certainly worthy of an entry here as she made a bit of a stir on the internet that has lead to her notarieity in many circles (evidenced by the fact that she was asked to pose for a magazine as popular as Maxim). AriGold 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, there should be a way we end this debate. This is not the first time it has come up and each time a consensus agrees that she is worthy of an article.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keyra_Augustina#VFU_Debate for the last time this was addressed. AriGold 18:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - NON ENCICLOPEDIC. she ISN'T a model,those pics have been STOLEN from her PC,She doesn't want to be a famous,Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life,I hope you can understand the 90% of the information is false, she hasn't got an official web site,that links are spam of porn websites with publicity. NomiARG 20:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Only the majority of the pictures are "stolen", and YES, she IS a model. Proof can be found here http://www.maximonline.com/girls_of_maxim/girl_template.aspx?id=1137 where Maxim did a phhotoshoot with her.  The picture in the magazine isn't one of the stolen ones, it is a professional one that, imo, makes her a model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AriGold (talk • contribs)
 * Keep -- notable pinup model. NomiARG's arguments are irrelevant -- Keyra is quite famous. Haikupoet 21:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-enciclopedic. Ratchelk 16:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- notable --alex 18:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non enciclopedic. Oscorrp 23:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Non-notable biography.Triniron 01:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- notable pinup-- Jeff 18:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.109.63.34 (talk • contribs)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Ridiculous, non-notable, un-encyclopedic Cavewoman 02:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --NaconKantari 02:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-enciclopedic - kast0r 02:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete : per reasons above. Churro 11:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 21:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Glido 12:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 21:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-enciclopedic, spam/hoax, unverified. Qeezer 14:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 21:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable,non-enciclopedic. Jolukas 15:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)--user's first edit. -- JJay 21:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What is far more telling than the fact that many of the above votes are first edits is their common spelling error (*enciclopedic). &lt; K  F &gt;  22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.173.231 (talk • contribs)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep She is famous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.136 (talk • contribs)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP HER!!! KEEP HER!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.152.14 (talk • contribs)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the Maxim shoot pushed her notability up over the borderline, if only just barely. The number of sockpuppet delete votes is absurd. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've never heard of that gal before, but that is completely immaterial. The article is well-written, NPOV, referenced, and she has really become notable (and thus encyclopaedic), if only / exactly because (let's suppose it's true) "those pics have been STOLEN from her PC,She doesn't want to be a famous". &lt; K  F &gt;  22:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep'. Why remove it? Sebastian Kessel Talk 22:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Socially relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlcideNikopol (talk • contribs)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. On Maxim, on Howard Stern, I've seen her talked about on many message boards, she is socially relevant.ImmortalDragon 23:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote discounted due to too little participation prior to this debate. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep ifilm lists one of her movies (the second I think) as the third most watched film on they're site, I think she's at least as notable as Leeroy Jenkins Makenji-san 00:45, 11 January 2006 (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.