Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disha Jha

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. Daniel (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disha Jha[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD but no reason provided. Does not meet any inclusion guideline; assistant directors and crew members are not notable by default and would need to meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Also WP:NOTINHERITED; notability is not inherited from famous parents. Changing to a redirect could be tricky as there is not one clear and obvious redirect target (I would argue both parents are equally notable).

I could not find multiple sources covering Disha Jha in any great depth during a WP:BEFORE search. Spiderone 18:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does the subject receive in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources? In-depth means the subject receives comprehensive and thorough coverage. Significant means the subject receives coverage that is sufficiently great or important enough to be worthy of attention. We all know what reliable, independent and secondary is. Multiple doesn't simply mean more than one, numerically. It actually means the subject receives separate coverage in more than one source as presented from different angles. If five reliable sources all report the same thing it is considered ONE source. The subject of this article fails WP:N in those regards. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable media. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Nobility is not inherited. RationalPuff (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - she's gotten quite a lot of media attention because she's the trust fund baby of notable, creative people. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that this could be mentioned in the articles of the parents but doesn't necessarily do enough to substantiate an article on Disha Jha. She is essentially still just an apprentice/production assistant/costume supervisor who happens to have famous parents Spiderone 17:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage. Peter303x (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2021 (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.