Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theertha Vinod

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. No consensus to keep non-notable topic. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theertha Vinod[edit]

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

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. The subject has a relatively minor role in an upcoming film and has participated in some TV contests. The sources cited in the article are non-reliable or at best borderline and some (eg filmibeat and ibtimes) don't even mention the subject (the article creator and his meat-puppets are known for misrepresenting sources in this way). Abecedare (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. A child with one movie role, TV dance shows appearances (and a mug with her picture on it) does not notability make! Poor or BS sourcing clinches it. 220 of ^Borg 17:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the just another example of the promotional sockfarm puffery that is running rampant in such articles. Take a non-notable "up and comer", add a whack of references that don't verify the content or are tenuously related to the subject, then IP-hop and create multiple socks to maintain the article.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've attempted to clean up the article and, as expected, the references either did not meet WP:RS or failed verification entirely. Given that the subject is a minor and the notability is dubious at best, I strongly support deletion. On a related note, my virus scan and browser are crying real tears at what I put them through attempting to verify the references given.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:29, 11 September 2015 (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.