Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shikha Makan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Bachelor Girls. Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shikha Makan[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Shikha Makan (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)

Non notable filmmaker, fails WP:DIRECTOR Act345 16:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:BASIC.[3][4] cbratbyrudd (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The keep !votes are based on two interviews – [5] & [6] – which contain around four independent lines about her. She has given other interviews as well. And it seems that all of them are related to the promotion of her documentary Bachelor Girls, although I haven't searched about her properly yet. As of now, I don't see any independent, in-depth coverage about her. Hopefully the AfD will get relisted so that we can discuss her notability. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with NitinMlk. All the sources given are legitimately sound but it all targets her film, Bachelor Girl and not herself. I feel that the article has yet to mature and I suggest moving into draftspace for the time being, to wait till it is well developed instead of being deleted. Subject seems to have the potential of growing in the future. EROS message 15:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I agree that the subject might become notable in the future, but, as of now, they are nowhere close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. So, as I explained below, redirect seems like the appropriate choice here. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I just checked online sources about her exhaustively. She has given many interviews in regard to Bachelor Girls, but I couldn't find any independent source about her. Even among the interviews, only three sources – Hindustan Times, Economic Times, & Daily Pakistan – give some details about her. As all of the three sources have provided the same information in different ways, I am quoting Hindustan Times here:
"Makan, who has a degree in psychology and was a research student and an RJ in Delhi, spent the next few years assisting on various documentaries and directing ad films. After making her debut with an experimental short film — Linger (2012) — which travelled to film festivals, Makan decided to make Bachelor Girls, a documentary on the bias towards unmarried women in housing societies."
I have also searched Hindi newspapers, but could find only one passing mention – Deutsche Welle. So we have around four lines of relevant coverage about her, which is nowhere close to what we need for a standalone article. Having said that, there is a valid alternative to deletion for the page. It can be redirected to Bachelor Girls, where she is already mentioned. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is not about how much a source has written, but that independent source has written. In that case you have got it all wrong. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted the relevant information about WP:GNG in the AfD of your another article, but it seems that you didn't read it. So I am quoting it again here:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. .... "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.

As you can see clearly from the guideline, we need independent & in-depth coverage, so that we can have enough material for an NPOV-based stand-alone article.

If there isn't enough coverage about the topic, then we try to find an alternative for deletion. As there isn't any mergeworthy content in the present stub, we are left with the choice of redirecting it to the subject's documentary article. BTW, as she hasn't received any independent coverage yet, and all of her interviews are basically in the context of her documentary, you can add a Background section in the documentary's article, which can explain her reasons behind creating that documentary. And the above page will serve as a good search aid till she receives enough independent coverage.

Finally, we can draftify it. But the draft will either get deleted after few months (as 4-5 lines aren't enough for a standalone article), or it will be moved back to the mainspace. In the first scenario, we will lose a valuable redirect, and in the second scenario, we will be back to its AfD, which will be total waste of time. So, best solution here is to keep it as a redirect till the subject gets healthy amount of independent coverage. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And in which place of earth this is not "significant"? Accesscrawl (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have already discussed this in my previous comments, but I guess you didn't read them carefully. Anyway, the source provided by you has already been discussed by me in one of my previous comments here – [7]. In fact, I've already quoted the four relevant lines from it. Everything else in it is about the documentary & the details relevant to that. That's why I previously mentioned: as "all of her interviews are basically in the context of her documentary, you can add a Background section in the documentary's article, which can explain her reasons behind creating that documentary." - NitinMlk (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep per sources above showing the significant coverage of the subject in third party reliable references. I think it meets WP:GNG. Onkuchia (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Interviews given to promote one's documentary aren't considered "third party" sources. Also, please provide sources which have "significant coverage of the subject", as I am unable to find one. BTW, by subject I mean the subject of this AfD, not the subject's documentary. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bachelor Girls, as per WP:ATD. As of now, the subject hasn't received any independent & in-depth coverage, thereby failing WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. All we have are her interviews, which discuss the subject in passing while entirely focusing on her documentary or some other topic. So the page should be redirected to her documentary, as it is a valid search term. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shikha_Makan&oldid=855184706"