Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esti Ginzborg

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. WP:BIO requires multiple independent non-trivial sources. One isn't multiple, and the source is not non-trivial. --Coredesat 07:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esti Ginzborg

Esti Ginzborg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Strong Delete -- completely non-notable. Lisa Irwin 05:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep article is a mess, but could be cleaned up with additions from this entry from FMD which contains a bunch of information about her. Its only one source, but it is independant, and marginally non-trivial. Still, IMHO it pushes her over the threshhold barely. Thus this is a weak keep. If other references can be found, even better. --Jayron32 05:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Bold text

Delete FMD features thousands of models and IMO is not enough to establish notability. On a personal note, I think she is quite distinctive and has potential, but that's just my POV. If she makes it to Vogue's cover I'll gladly change my vote . Stammer 11:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Garbage stub. "Many say she has a bright future." - Who cares? Crystalballery, vanity, unencylopedic, non-notability. Scienter 15:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No prejudice against recreation should her future turn out to be notably "bright". -- Shunpiker 01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Bad article, non-notable person, and so I say delete.--SUIT 05:15, 29 November 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.