Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shivani Kapoor

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. Icewedge (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shivani Kapoor

Little known Indian model of wich there are thousands, hence no notability. --Law Lord (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has number of reliable sources on the subject featuring biographical reviews and (exclusive!) interviews with the model, including one saying that "Today, she is one of the top models in the country and most of the designers want her to be part of their ramp walk." [1] I am somewhat baffled by the nominators reasoning; am I missing something or would (s)he care to expand ? Abecedare (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is clearly established in this article. --J^mundo 02:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If she's not notable, then how come all those publications heard of her? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample sourcing in the article, demonstrating notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please check sources If you look at the sources, you will see:
- 3 are short articles from Times of India, which means she has done moddeling in India. Being a model does not make a person notable in itself.
- This source just says she worked as a model in 2006.
- This source is too short to be of any use.
- These are all old: [2] [3] [4]

Could anybody show anything recent that can establish notability? (Also, had to remove one source, which gave a 404.) --Law Lord (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. What is the relevance for notability of publications being old or recent? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: It seems the person has only been in the news for a few years 2002-2006, and being a relatively obscure one-hit-wonder does not make a person notable. --Law Lord (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable model, even if for a four year period. She is still referenced in the Indian press as recently as late 2008.[5] [6] [7] [8] Priyanath ^talk 03:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - properly referenced with many sources so both notability and verifiability is satisfied. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 21 April 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.