Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Ali Khan


 * 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 no consensus. This was relisted, but the discussion has received ample input from users. Per WP:RELIST, "relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable." North America1000 02:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sara Ali Khan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable child of famous individuals. Two of the three references are about her parents & don't mention her, the one link that mentions her says there is a rumor that she will be appearing in an upcoming film, no confirmation of her appearance or even of the film itself. Posting here as speedy was questioned by another editor. JamesG5 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  17:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Source here and here and here and here. Yes she has famous parents but she's getting coverage to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Three of those 4 repeat the same rumor, with one specifically noting it's unsubstantiated. The fourth is a statement from her family saying the rumor isn't true. Does having someone start a rumor about you that generates a few stories rate? JamesG5 (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not think it is our job to question the validity of what is reported, but rather to determine if it is reported. Yes it gets a bit soppy in the entertainment sphere, like this and this, but I simply go by what the WP:GNG says which is If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list..--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Basically, I agree with Tom. Sometimes wide press coverage of a rumor regarding a borderline-notable is enough to tip the scales. I think there's enough coverage here to satisfy the GNG. It's certainly not Kardashian-awful tabloidery. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Per above comments. &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Drafitfy As mentioned in the comments from other users above, the sources primarily talk about a rumor of her being cast in the film. If anyone can direct or add sources confirming whether she had a significant role in it, I think we are good to go. Also, as per WP:GNG, the sources are not verifiable. The first source is Masala.com, which is a fluffy gossip tabloid which nears the discussion to the Kardashian debacle that someone has mentioned here. Best,  Nair sp ec ht ''' (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think tabloid-y gossip-y newsmagazines are appropriate sources for people in the entertainment business. One can ask oneself: does any of the information in them about the subject appear to be incorrect? I doubt it. Of course the sources are not peer-reviewed academic journals but sources like Masala and the others cover this type of subject, and to varying extents, do a good job with such coverage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 12:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Drafitfy - I don't agree that tabloids are sufficient sources on their own. The issue is not if they're correct, it's if the things that they cover are notable and exist in some influential facet outside of the tabloids own little bubble of culture, which I would say they mostly don't. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well what sources would work for you? And are there any Wikipedia rulings relating to "bubble of culture"? Can you point to anything in the tabloid sources that you believe is factually incorrect?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Are we keeping it, incubating (draftifying) it, or deleting it? Mr. Guye (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete instead as none of this is actually convincing of the solid independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  04:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: An article that almost entirely is a list of her family connections is NOT a good start to any of this. Secondly, most of the articles appear to be her family members talking about her or WP:CRYSTALBALL about a film she is going to appear it..  Keep it, really?  Let's wait at least the film comes out. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2016 (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.