Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 3AM Girls

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 3AM Girls

poorly written. notability not established Igbogirl 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete Neutral. That they showed up in the list of 100 Worst Britons tends to give more credence to their notability. However, this is a weak claim at best and this is the only claim made in the article. Given that not one of the current or prior women appear notable on their own further supports my vote. Being poorly written isn't really a good criteria for an AfD, it's grounds to improve the article. --Yamla 17:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteWeak Keep per other commentary. Changed own vote. --Dennisthe2 21:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Yes, the article is poorly written, but that is no reason for AfD, instead it is a reason to take it and shake it and improve it. Notablity is not hard to establish: shows over 900 ghits, a number of which are from national media that is not the Mirror Group. Fiddle Faddle 19:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have taken it and shaken it so we can see the wood from the trees. It could now do with fleshing out. Fiddle Faddle 20:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - very well known UK tabloid phenomenon, the rotating membership isn't really an issue. Ac@osr 20:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - depressing as their existence is, they are notable. Even if the girls themselves aren't (and I would assert that individually, they're not notable), the thing that is 'The 3AM Girls' is a very well known British tabloid thing. (Using 'thing' in the sense of 'a wet, snotty thing stuck to your shoe that you want to shake off')--Mnemeson 23:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Even though they may well be the symptom of a decadent society that is more obsessed with minor celebrity than any real news they are nonetheless a very notable part of British journalism. Keresaspa 15:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notability has been met and verified. Article is in need of a rewrite I would agree. Wildthing61476 19:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. The subject is notable, the article just needs improvement, {{sofixit}}. RFerreira 22:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. They have been much discussed in the popular media recently. Itsmejudith 14:43, 29 September 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.