Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janhvi Kapoor


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Janhvi Kapoor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is the duplicate page of Jahnavi Kapoor. What fails, REDIRECT or DELETE it. HINDWIKI •  CHAT  12:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - She does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The two articles were created within hours of each other, and this looks like the correct title. I have merged the two, including edit history, with the result at Janhvi Kapoor and I have left Jahnavi Kapoor as a redirect. Whether notability is established is something I will leave to others to decide, but if this is deleted then the redirect at Jahnavi Kapoor should also be deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - failes WP:NACTOR, as she not only doesn't have two significant rolls yet, her first has not even been released. Coverage is daughter-of-a-famous-person coverage, she deserves a mention in her mother's article perhaps, but doesn't have the independent notability for an article of her own. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete GNG, NACTOR, TOOSOON. I don't think a ATD to her mother is a good idea beacuse she may become notable on her own accord in a few years. If we think her independent notability is later rather than sooner than I am not opposed to a Redirect so the link is blue and not encouraging new editors to try and write a BLP on her. L3X1 (distænt write)  16:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep the article has much more reliable sources in the both way like daughter of popular Indian actress and her own popularity for her upcoming film. there's no fails of any Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks HINDWIKI •  CHAT  12:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hindwiki are you withdrawing your nomination? L3X1 (distænt write)  14:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The initial nomination was actually for a different earlier version of the article, which was created a few hours after HINDWIKI created Jahnavi Kapoor. But both had unique content, so I declined a WP:A10 delete request and merged them under what appears to be the most appropriate name. Since then, other commentators have turned to examining the current Janhvi Kapoor article for notability standards. Bureaucratically it might perhaps be correct to withdraw this one and start a new discussion (I don't really know - I'm not much of a wikilawyer), but that would surely only waste time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Were it withdrawn, I would just renominate for the WP:NACTOR problems that most of the others commenting have been reflecting (I had prodded the subject under its other spelling for just that reason.) So yes, it would only waste time; we should just recognize the OP's change of !vote and move along. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I knew nom couldn't withdraw and close it due to the outstanding delete !votes, i wasn't sure why he was turning around though. L3X1 (distænt write)  15:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I am withdrawn my nomination because article has notability per WP:Notability guidelines. Please don't open any other discussion and keep it on Wikipedia and  this time the article has WP:NACTOR but in future (at least 5-10 days or more to go) when film's trailer and Film will release then the user waste their time in creation of this.  Please close the discussion and Sorry for wasting your time. Thanks HINDWIKI •  CHAT  15:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Even when the film comes out, she doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, as that calls for multiple significant roles. We don't avoid editing Wikipedia because it will have meant that someone will have wasted their time; that would leave the place a pile of junk. You can ask for the article to be draftified into your user space, so should the subject actually meet our guidelines, you will have something to work off of... but we tend to allow drafts to only hang around so long. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, as you wish but I have disappoint with this decision. But this time I am satisfied with draftified it into my user space.HINDWIKI •  CHAT  15:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete subject does not pass the notability guidelines for actors, which for people known only as actors, overcome a possibly scape by pass of GNG. Nominators can switch to thinking an article should be kept, but when others have supported deletion, they should not be able to withdraw the deletion request. Wikipedia has too many AfD procedures that make it possible to keep articles on procedural grounds, none to delete them on procedural grounds. This is the opposite of what things should be like, especially for living people in light of what our actual policy on biographies of living people is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2017 (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.