Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibhinta Verma

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. J04n(talk page) 23:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vibhinta Verma (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)

Does not meet

• Comment (Note - Same editor voted "Keep" Below): - I believe that she follows GNG guidelines. She worked in many commercial. and top companies choose top notable models to perform in their commercials. I have added many references will search more and add. Dr Adil (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

czar · · 21:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

czar · · 21:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - We have evidence that she is a working model, but not necessarily one meeting wikipedia's
  inclusion criteria. This profile is the most substantial material available that cold be found. Other news sources just turn up passsing mentions like this one. [1] would seem to indicate she really hasn't developed much of a film career yet. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - All the provided references clearly mention her role and reputation he is the winner of elite model look India 2004(This profile) and Wikipedia is not just for Film actresses. So if she doesn't have much career in films yet, she has a wonderful career in modeling, She also represented India in international Competitions. Dr Adil (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The sources are passing mentions. The profile is part of a series called "Model of the Day" which just churns out a profile of a model every day. See [2], and [3] for the prior two days entries. That makes it a rather weak source for
    notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Comment (More References Added)- Many new references has been added. I hope to have a positive comment now. Thanks you for helping me in order to make the article more acceptable.Dr Adil (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Only one !vote per editor please. -- Whpq (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Damn this lady is fine. But Youtube links and an IMDb profile do not notability make. See WP:Notability (people). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree: Why not, you tube links shows his commercials and short films and media interviews. New other references besides YouTube have also been added.and I have read the notability guidelines. Dr Adil (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You are free to disagree but understand that there is only one vote per editor; continuously arguing with each other individual editor isn't going to bolster your case. As for Youtube and the other "references" you've added, please read
  Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to understand why they're weak. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: - I have stated my point of view. No personal offence. I am sorry if you didn't like it or taken it as offensive behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candicell (talk • contribs) 09:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about your specific point of view, it's about what appears to both myself and another editor to be some sort of multi-voting in addition to a somewhat aggressive nature in constantly responding and posting new comments with an asterisk as though something pressing has come up, when that clearly isn't the case. Also, please remember to sign. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: - I have put forward my reasons. Do Wikipedia forbid to reply to comments? Dr Adil (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You put forward the same reasons over and over again, and have used the asterisk heading every single time as though you're adding some pressing new comment to the discussion. It clutters the discussion as well as comes off as a pestering annoyance. You said your piece, now let the discussion run its course while others chime in. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2013 (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.