Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaheen bhatt

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. ✗plicit 14:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen bhatt[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)

It is not enough to be the daughter of a renown director or actress to establish notability. The topic does not passes WP:NACTOR, also fails WP:NAUTHOR. References do not show enough notability to justify WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough to show that WP:NACTOR is met, while mention is made of notable relatives, notability is not inherited. Ravensfire (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, move the article to draft space as this is a new article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NACTOR nor is GNG met. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable actor, no evidence of meeting NACTOR or GNG -- Ab207 (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments If by any chance the article is kept it needs to be moved to Shaheen Bhatt: a previous article there was CSD'd A7 in 2013. Her book might just about give her notability if reviews in RS can be found. PamD 07:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Draftify as suggested above: I've added a couple of book reviews (and moved family out of the lead, etc), but probably not currently showing enough notability. PamD 07:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest Wait and watch as for notability, on account of the work she has done in the movies, it can be considered fairly substantial, also considering she had health issues. Looking up for more to improve the overall article. Amitized (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per WP:AUTHOR because her book has multiple reviews:

https://www.koimoi.com/bollywood-news/ive-never-been-unhappier-alia-bhatts-sister-shaheen-bhatt-announces-paperback-of-her-book/
https://vidhyathakkar.com/book-review-of-ive-never-been-unhappier-by-shaheen-bhatt/

Weak as one is by a blogger, but the blogger appears to be credible in her role as a book reviewer, but it's not exactly grade A for reliable sources. CT55555 (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First source is not a review, just announcement. No indication that the second author is a subject-matter expert to consider it under WP:SPS -- Ab207 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several references have been added since this deletion discussion was initiated. There's also the option to draftify instead of deleting. Where are we headed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I reviewed all the sources mentioned above or in the current version of the article, and it really comes across as trying to make a meal out of condiments. I would categorize the sources as follows:
- Interviews, reprinted PR material, and book excerpts/first-person-pieces from the time her book was released, which cannot be regarded as independent of the subject [1] [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]
- Trivial entertainment/gossip-media coverage [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]
- Other non-RS sources: Goodreads, 10 things to know..., Savasher, Unitedway
- Book 'reviews' on PR blogs (read: almost surely paid content): thenerddaily (see invitation to authors and publishers), vidyathakkar.com ("Book Influencer and a Social Media Strategist... worked with more than 700 Authors, Brands and India’s listed Publisher’s in regards with Marketing and Promotions.")
- Misc: review in madinasia, a group blog/site focused on disability; seems sincere but not a prominent venue or one recognized for its editorial quality

Wading through all that, I see two pieces that are written with any amount of care: this Hindu article about the book release (though keep in mind that such coverage, at least partly, is a result of the subject's very famous sister and father being present), and this short interview/profile. However I don't think these are detailed or independent enough to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR.

Given that Bhatt's book was published in 2019, which was the impetus for most of the above coverage, I don't think working on the article for a few more weeks will help us locate better sources or develop it further. So Draftification would not help at the moment. Lastly, I believe that the current attempt to blow up thin media coverage into an encyclopedic biographies has resulted in some misrepresentations and undue amplifications that raise BLP-concerns. Examples:

This short and trivial "news" item is now immortalized in an encyclpedic entry as "Her father Mahesh Bhatt caused commotion with his language and tone during the launch due to which her sister Alia had to pacify him."
Compare the wikipedia article text, "While her father wasnt around much, she did find him to be under the infuence of raging alcoholism." with what the source (ie, Shaheen Bhatt) says, ""My father stopped drinking just days after I was born."

The current article also contains a lot of redundant, repetitious, and undue content but all that is worth dealing with only if the article were to be retained. Abecedare (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:NACTOR Alex-h (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2022 (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.