Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dina Wadia


 * 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   keep. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Dina Wadia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No reliable sources provided or that have been found by two different editors to show that this person is notable (meeting either WP:GNG or WP:BIO). All of the references discuss her solely in connection with her father--none show that she is independently notable, and notability is not inherited. Unless new references are provided to verify notability of subject (not her relatives), article should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep While I normally tend to avoid being too biased in AfDs, you have got this one completely wrong. One look at whose daughter she is should be enough to validate the notability of this person. Besides, I recommend you make use of Google first the next time you go for a deletion. Mar4d (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides, the article has some sources and references in the end. Could you demonstrate what is contradicting notability or lack of sources here? Mar4d (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom (I was the other editor referred to in the nomination). In response to Mar4d's query, it is the case that notability is not inherited, per WP:NRVE. - Sitush (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject has received sufficient coverage of her activities in the news media to justify having an article about her. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it not incidental coverage, though, as a consequence of her father? This is generally insufficient. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  —Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep she is independently notable of Jinnah. her recent legal battle is well covered by RS --Wikireader41 (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It appears to me that the coverage she's received is clearly non-trivial, here's a good book source . She has also received coverage for legal battles, as Wikireader41 points out above. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The book coverage does not rise to the level of "Significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG--it's a few pages in a very long book about her father, and most of the information is about her relationship with him (much as the article itself is). I grant that there is more coverage of her claim over the house (it would help if some of the above editors would actually add that info to the article, instead of just mentioning it here, so that we can all see what the article should look like), but this coverage still fails for me in a number of ways.  For one, it seems very close to WP:BLP1E (if her only claim to notability is a sequence of court cases suing for ownership of a house previously owned by her father); second, it's still very close to the inherited and insignificant coverage problem (while the articles mention her, they don't actually talk about her in detail--the story is of interest not because it's a lawsuit, but because of the original owner of the house).  This seems like a very borderline case to me...maybe an intermediate solution would be to cut the article down only to the information covering what she is notable for (apparently, the house lawsuit) and very basic, verified biographical information.   Qwyrxian (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per wikireader. Her relation to the Parsi community (having remarried in), relation with Jinnah, and legal battles make her notable.Pectoretalk 15:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It strike me that some people are not reading WP:N or have possibly forgotten some of its detai. Relationships do not confer notability, and there is only one legal battle of which I am aware and which, as Qwryxian says, is neither really referred to in the article and is a "single event". - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment her legal struggle where she tried to get Hindu law applied to a Muslim (Jinnah) is in itself notable ,. Her 2004 visit to Pakistan was also covered by media verifying her notability., .  How many daughters get disowned by their fathers for marrying a millionaire businessman just because he is of a different religion --Wikireader41 (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? What does being a millionaire have to do with it? Plenty of people have been disowned for marrying outside the religion of their family, regardless of the wealth of the spouse. "Just because ..." is a pretty poor summary of the impact of religion on lives. For many people who hold religious values, money is indeed the scourge/root of evil. - Sitush (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Sitush Her being disowned by her father does add notability in my view as does her decision to stay in India and opt out of Islam and I agree with Pectore on that. Besides her legal battle involved people in 2 countries and generated strong responses.  That having been said both your arguments and that of the nominators are pretty weak and this article has no chance of being deleted.  I suspect WP:SNOW applies here.  Like Mar4d says above it would help if people did a basic google search about an article before nominating it.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW certainly does not apply here. While I accept that this discussion right now appears to be heading towards a keep result, two users (myself and Sitush) still question whether this person is notable.  Your first two sources (currently #3 and #4) still only relate to the inheritance issue; it is possible that there is enough coverage here to overcome the One Event hurdle, but it's questionable, thus why I think a discussion is the way to decide if it passes that threshold to meet notability.  Plus, I still feel like the coverage of her is really coverage of her father, extended to her because of the lawsuit--the mausoleum visit coverage is the best example of this.  The Time article mentions her once, in a single line. And the Times of India isn't about her--again, it's about Jinnah.
 * Look, I did a Google news search before I came here. Every article I saw seemed to mention her only in relationship to her father.  Just getting a lot of search results hits doesn't qualify someone for an article, especially when the person is a relative of someone who is notable (Malia Obama, for instance, gets over 20,000 search results in Google News alone, but consensus is very clear that she cannot have her own article).  After reviewing the sources (I admit that I did not check every single one, merely sampling a variety of them) my opinion was (and, mostly, although not entirely, still is) her notability was strictly inherited, which is not enough to meet WP:N.  But, i since I had never heard of this person before coming on her article here, I asked first on the article's talk page, on 8 June, for some sort of explanation of why we should consider her independently notable.  I didn't nominate this for deletion until more than two weeks later, after not even one person explained why she is notable.  I fully accept that my interpretation of these sources may not achieve consensus--that is, that consensus appears likely to decide that her notability is independent of her father. That's fine--that's why we have these discussions.  But I take exception to the implication that my nomination was not preceded by research, or that this is somehow so obvious that WP:SNOW applies.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2011 (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.