Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adhuna Akhtar

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adhuna Akhtar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failing WP:ARTIST as a hairstylist, she seems to be getting all inherited notability from Akhtar family. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More than a "hairstylist." She appears to be an entrepreneur and creator of a brand. Also featured in publications such as CNN Travel [1], Mid-Day [2], MTV India [3], India Times [4], and more. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Lankiveil's Second Law. Mid day's article is her own interview, MTV is a blog, India Times is about her and her husband; WP:INHERITED. And her organizations, hair cutting salon, doesn't seem to pass WP:ORG either. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The article is not about her salon, it is about her. Just because an article also has her husband, doesn't mean that it is not a feature about her. In fact, one could argue the article is about her and features her husband. Also, the term "blog" is used to loosely around here. MTV is not a site that anyone can just sign up and contribute to. They have an editorial process unlike a common blog that you and I could start on Blogger or Wordpress. Guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia:Lankiveil's Second Law is about as reliable as a Wordpress or Blogger blog. It's not policy. Not even remotely close. "This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously." --CNMall41 (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If her shop isn't notable, she can't be notable either. And the article doesn't have her husband, the article has her in her husband's article, who happens to be a critically acclaimed film actor and director. Her parents-in-laws are more notable than her husband and there are other family members too who are notable on their own account. She getting inherited press publicity due to them is very common from such Page 3 journalism which you think has "editorial process". It might have "editorial" process but the whole genre of tabloids isn't really noteworthy. Go and find independent references which talk about her work as hair-dresser/entrepreneur and not press-releases of shop-opening-ceremonies. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read your contention for deletion. You state she fails artist. While she may be an artist, she is also an entrepreneur - which you tried to defuse over a joke Wikipedia policy that is only there for humor. First you say the references I provided are not reliable, then you state they are press releases.

"If her shop isn't notable, she can't be notable either" - That is way off base and an assumption. Based on what you say, all entrepreneurs who are notable mean their companies are also notable? So now you are talking about inherent notability. Basically, you are saying if her shop was notable then she would be notable? That is also inherent notability which is something you are arguing against, thereby conflicting your rationale for deleting the article. Not sure where you're coming from here, but again, we will have to disagree. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will let other editors have a look now because you aren't understanding a thing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for allowing other editors to look. I am understanding perfectly based on the information you provided. It could be you are not stating your contention clearly enough. Again, like the last two times, it looks like we are going to disagree. But I'll give you the last word if there is something you want to state more clearly. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Regular WP:INB editors would be competent enough to understand the subject case. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume good faith, but you are crossing the line. I understand less because I am not Indian? Don't be pissed because someone disagrees with you. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if you are Indian or not. INB is open for all. But we do need WP:COMPETENCE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 02:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily satisfies WP:GNG; lots of press coverage exclusively about her. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion case is based on the claim that the subject claims notability just on inheritance. So its obvious that she gets mentioned here and there in press coverage. But if you think that this coverage is "exclusive" and "lots" about her, you need to present them here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not "claimed" on inheritance. You stated that she is not notable based on such, which I agreed. Not sure why another editor needs to present you with evidence that I already provided above. There are plenty of reliable sources that cover her indepth as stated AND listed previously. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not sure then you need not bother. It was not directed to you in the first place! She gets press coverage because she is related to other notable people. Such "inherited notability" is not considered "notable" by wiki standards of WP:N. There are no plenty+RS+indepth sources about her, which you claim exists. She is a non-notable hairdresser who happens to have worked in films directed by her husband where her father-in-law wrote lyrics/story/screenplay of the film. Seems the selection was little based on merits. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also based on the sources, which I provided earlier in my keep comment above. Seems like you are not happy with the way she was selected to work in films, but if the "selection was little based on merits" this is your opinion, not what the sources say WP:VNT. Since Wikipedia is based on what the sources say, your opinion about how she received the press is irrelevant. However, if you can show me a reference that states her being selected for the in depth coverage I provided was "little based on merits" I will be glad to change my vote to delete.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED says "Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative." So what "something significant" and "notable" has she done? Hair dressing in 2-3 films directed and acted by her husband? Or opening a saloon? And 2 of 4 reference talk about her as Farhan's wife, one another is her own interview and second is almost an advertisement of her new saloon with plenty quotes by her. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mostly attributed as wife of Farhan Akhtar. As noted by Rsrikanth05 and the nominator, she is the case of inherited notability. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 12 December 2015 (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.