Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isha Ambani

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. Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isha Ambani[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)

Fails WP:ANYBIO The sources are way too weak to pass GNG. It is essentially routine rehashes of press releases. For the moment she has achieved nothing notable enough to get in depth coverage on her own merits. A good deal of the sources are about her father and she gets a passing mention. The rest are articles announcing that her father appointed his children as board members of his company aged 23. The rest is a forbes list and reports of the Forbes list. Probably the work of WP:UPE editors. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one of those articles, similar to one I just nominated elsewhere, which at first glance looks well-sourced and legitimate. Digging deeper into the sources, though, shows they are simply incidental mentions and WP:ROUTINE coverage including lightly paraphrased press releases from outlets of questionable quality. Another case of WP:REFBOMBING. Wolfson5 (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello. I believe the article deserves to be kept at present. She has been listed by Forbes, as mentioned, and has also been covered across several verifiable independent publications such as USAToday, Economic Times, etc. She clearly passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG and this suggests that keeping the page is the best course of action. Also, considering the page views that this has received recently, it is fair to say that her notability is not in question. I do, however, believe that the page can be further built upon, which is something that can be looked at. 2402:3A80:6A6:E213:28AF:20F9:C820:2AC3 (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has no standalone notability. Cesdeva ^(talk) 22:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited. --Saqib (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She might have her legitimate article in encyclopedia in the future. As of now, it is too soon to include her here. Most of her notability is inherited by her dad and his business empire. Besides, she can't pass GNG on the basis of a grand wedding. Dial911 (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Genuine query- isn't appearing on three Forbes' lists of richest X people an indicator of notability? 2.51.17.28 (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't solely use Forbes to prove notability. Plus these inclusions:1, 2 are in the context of her father's wealth. Cesdeva ^(talk) 15:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be kept a little longer. Someone please add photo and little detail about the person. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any reasoning as to why it should be kept? Cesdeva ^(talk) 19:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Isha Ambani is notable and a big personality in India and many parts of the world. If celebutantes like Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton can have articles, she qualifies for it as well. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Highpeaks35, how is she notable? And do go over WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for your second argument. Dial911 (talk) 01:43, 18 December 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.