Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shweta Bachchan Nanda


 * 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Shweta Bachchan Nanda

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability not inherited. No major works/achievements to pass WP:NACTOR or WP:AUTHOR. Her coverages are mainly due to being the daughter of two significant people. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 10:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -  The9Man  ( Talk ) 10:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -  The9Man  ( Talk ) 10:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -  The9Man  ( Talk ) 10:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep Yes, notability not inherited. However, she wrote a novel and also acted in a movie. Such persons are notable but it's a high bar. Dwain09877 (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please share the film she acted in major role, not aware of this and failed to find any references. Simply writing a novel isn't enough to pass WP:AUTHOR either. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 08:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an ad film. Just checked thoroughly. Yeah, I changed my mind now. Dwain09877 (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect and merge with Amitabh Bachchan. Redirects are cheap. I agree with that she is not remarkable enough to have her own article, but there is no reason why Amitabh Bachchan her dad's article could not have a paragraph about her. Did you pursue other options before deleting this page? I see no reason to delete the article and destroy the usable information. Few years back I had searched for her name, and I can imagine more people may be looking for her as she is the daughter of BigB.  what do you think about my suggestion? Walrus Ji (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's listen to other editors, too. Dwain09877 (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes merge as suggested above.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - okay, I've expanded it now, sources added. Definitely notable and not at all due to her family background. Her parents and position might have given her the opportunity, but she is her own person and her individual work has been gaining wide coverage - the author of a bestselling book, a columnist for DNA India and Vogue India, always in the news for her different ventures, including the fashion label she lauched. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Excellent job by User:Shshshsh to fix this article's issues, by removing cruft and adding sources. VocalIndia (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has seen significantly expanded. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * After reading your reply I am scratching my head here, as clearly I dont see anything remarkable in her achievement. that you are seeing. None of you have provided any link for the rule which proves that this person deserves her own article. It seems likely that you are referring to some rule that is not mentioned either on WP:NACTOR or WP:AUTHOR. Just writing a novel that gets a review article is not a remarkable achievement, being a columnist in a newspaper is also not a rule anywhere for an article. Even the article about the book seem to be there only because of her being BigB daughter. The rule on Wikipedia NAUTHOR demands "the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Even WP:GNG demands "significant coverage in multiple media". I see no criteria being met here for keeping the individual article as of now. Walrus Ji (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, actually it is me who's scratching his head right now. You are clearly misinterpreting WP:N here, and I don't mean to be disparaging to you. If you feel something about this (IMO redundant) nomination, then cast your vote like everybody else does. She's not an actor at all, so drop the WP:NACTOR; if you don't want to see her as an author, forget WP:NAUTHOR as well. But indeed, the general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in multiple media", just as you've quoted here, and she's got plenty of it for her individual activity. Does she get all that attention because of her family background? Probably, so? That you do not see "anything remarkable in her achievement" is strictly your personal opinion, and subjective positions cannot be guiding us here. I can give you names of many celebs who are pretty much famous without a reason, so it's not really a valid rationale. Bachchan-Nanda has written a bestselling book (which has been reviewed all over the Indian press; two cited in the article), columns in a leading newspaper and a high-profile magazine, her fashion label has been widely publicised. All of it is not my own knowledge, it has been reported in numerous reliable sources, some of which are cited in the article. I specifically took the time to support every single claim with several sources, to not leave doubts about the "significant coverage in multiple media" she gets. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am not saying you are wrong, just askign what I am missing here. I am not misinterpreting anything, I just quoted from the notability rules that others have mentioned. I had to quote because folks above seem to unaware of the high bar needed for WP:BIO articles. May be they did not bother to read the rule so I quoted it. A fashion label or a book may be highly publicised because of "Paid publicity", they need to be disregarded. In fact most of the articles listed as a reference are PR piece/advertorials for the channel or her cloth company or her novel, most of which mention her parent in the title. WP:GNG demands "significant coverage in multiple media". If you think GNG is met, then please post those links below for review. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My friend, most of what you said about the articles being "paid publicity" and "PR piece" is baseless and pure speculation, and the burden of evidence in this case is on you. As a matter of fact, the reviews cited are highly critical of her book, so I can't see how you even come to such conclusions. All the sources more than meet WP:RS, most are newspapers, their authors provided, and there are many more. Whether her parents are mentioned or not (and in most cases, as opposed to what you've said here, they're not), matters less. I certainly do not have to post links on this page, I've cited them in the article as inline citations, and if you think any of them does not meet WP's reliability guideline, please explain it here, providing the right kind of evidence. Thanks, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are only repeating yourself without adding evidence, so I will end this discussion with my parting comment. She fails WP:NAUTHOR for reasons stated above, prominently as her book is not a remarkable work, no awards. She fails WP:GNG because so far none of sources that I see in the ref section or my searches are "  significant coverage  " of her Biography. On top of that not one link was presented here, despite asking. I will continue with my original assessment of "Redirect". --Walrus Ji (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you are repeating yourself, in addition to clearly not having read my reply to you. She is not an author, so WP:NAUTHOR is not relevant, she is a person who wrote a bestselling book. The awards part is almost funny, I can give you many, many iconic books which haven't won any award, and why would she win an award for a book which was a critical failure? The fact is that the book was well covered in the press, and if anyone has to provide here evidence, it is you, my friend, for your baseless, speculative, and unsubstantiated claims of some paid publicity and bad faith on the reliable sources, which reviewed her work negatively. The page provides sources which actually do provide significant coverage of Bachchan-Nanda, because every claim is supported by different articles from different reliable publications. As for presenting links here, I'll happily repeat myself here again - they are presented as inline citations in the article, no need to present them here, that's not how it works. She is a notable person for her many ventures - not necessarily her book but her entire activity altogether. That's it, thank you, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling the subject a best selling author is laughable, to say the least. Appear on a website as the second-most selling book on a certain week doesn't make it a 'best selling book'. And getting a passing coverage on the same by her notable father's Instagram post is not remarkable either. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 09:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's agree to disagree. In any case, she gets wide coverage for her work in the media - sufficient of a reason to assume her notability on WP. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not inherited. Not notable as an actress nor author. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, notability is indeed not inherited, but it looks like you haven't even looked into the article. She is not an actress, never was. Moreover, many of the sources, do not even mention her father, so the claim that her notability is inherited is probably not relevant here. You can look at her as just a celebrity. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - more sources and information added. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have checked the updates. As commented already above, Redirect is still the preferred option in my opinion. Delete is the second option. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we've already established that this is your opinion, and I had no doubt that it would not change, although you haven't fully explained why in view of the currently well-sourced article. Furthermore, I must note that you have yet to provide evidence for the unsubstantiated claims you've made above about the reliable sources cited in the article. Thanks, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Following WP:BEFORE#C4, quote "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term". Indeed this is a valid search term and this article should be merged and redirected. Walrus Ji (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're misinterpreting the policy. The subject is important - it totally abides by WP:GNG. She is a celebrity and writer, whose every activity receives significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (you called some of them "paid publicity" - I mean, negative reviews of her book!). Anyway, the subject is notable (even I didn't think she'd be), and I think the easy thing is stopping by and dismissing it time and again just for the sake of it. It is more challenging to put effort into saving it, improve it, and that's what I did no matter the outcome. That's the spirit of Wikipedia. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to learn the meaning of "misinterpret", it is not what you think it is. You have failed to prove any such claims on notability. Let me correct your lines. "She is a (daughter of a) celebrity and (obscure) writer, whose every activity receives significant Trivial coverage (due to her celebrity parents and promotional advertisements.)" Walrus Ji (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, what do you want? Didn't you already vote? Secondly, calm down there, and if anyone needs to learn, it is probably you (ironically, your very first sentence ignores the rules of punctuation, changed after my message, and so does the third), so let me teach you: see misinterpret on Wiktionary, that's exactly true of your behaviour. You're again posting here blatant lies. The claims of notability have been proven beyond doubt, look at the article, which is perfectly sourced now with many reliable sources. Please read WP:N again. You, on the other hand, are repeating the same senseless claims about "paid publicity" and "trivial". Where is your evidence? I don't know what you mean by trivial coverage, the sources on the article show that she gets significant coverage with articles written about her and her parents not being even mentioned. Your claims are baseless, mine are supported by the work I've done. Now I've had enough with carrying a fruitless debate with a new user who's never even contributed to Wikipedia . Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS talks about the quality of the argument and presence of evidence. It does not say anything about edit count or dick size. Your personal attacks have been noted. You are hereby warned to strictly limit your comment to the topic and refrain from making comments on the editors.Walrus Ji (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay that made me laugh. Now you're also misusing WP:NPA. At no point did I discuss you. I, as opposed to you, did stick to the content until you wrote "you need to learn..." - that is discussing me and not the content, so please, at least practice what you preach. The only one here who adheres to WP:CON happens to be me, frankly, as I was the one to expand the article with reliable sources, and you just attacked the subject and the reliable sources with some weird speculations, to which no evidence has been attached right to this moment. Another misinterpretation is your mention of edit counts, that's not what I said, and that's not my style (I would never ever start by telling someone that they "need to learn" unless they did so themselves, like you did), I was merely taking note of my recent contribution to this article as opposed to just dismissing it as you did, with no evidence. Since I do not want to offend, I'm striking my comment (which is deifnitely not an attack but just not nice). As I said, I always focus on the content. Anyhow, let's stop it here, I'm busy. If you have evidence for your claim that the sources are paid publicity, please post them, otherwise your claims should rightly be regarded as false. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment As I'm an Indian, she is really famous I know! There are some WP:IDONTLIKE here. She meets WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. VocalIndia (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, and since you are pretty firm about your opinion, I would recommend that you register a formal vote. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I aleady vote above. VocalIndia (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment (2) - more updates added with reliable sources - it appears that everything this lady does gets significant media attention, with no mention of her background as suggested by the nominator. Overall expansion. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly worthy of coverage and adequately sourced, and from a prominent Indian family.† Encyclopædius  14:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, has significant independent coverage from a variety of sources. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 20:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - has a bestselling book with plenty of reviews and coverage and has at least one in-depth article in almost every major Indian publication that I can think of. She might not be outstanding in any particular field but clearly the overall coverage is enough to justify an article. This isn't a NOTINHERITED case because she has enough coverage in her own right Spiderone  23:08, 22 December 2020 (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.