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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shweta Bachchan-Nanda

Weak Keep: maybe a non-notable minor Bollywood celebrity, maybe 'Bollywood Royalty'. I removed User:CrazyRussians prod from this because it seemed Eurocentric to quickly assume a Bollywood figure is non-notable without discussion. Searching on Rediff.com indicates that she has a kind of Nicky Hilton cachet, although with so much Bollywood publicity being print-only, it doesn't translate to the same kind of web-presence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardjames444 (talk • contribs).

• I'm tempted to go keep on this one. She does seem to be bigwig socialite type in India. If this one is deleted then a wider debate about the notability of all socialites would be needed so to avoid that keep would probably be easier. Keresaspa 14:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yet another baseless charge of Eurocentrism. The article asserts zero notability. If she's got multiple non-trivial works about her - add them - and dispense with the prod without resorting to attacks. Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Eurocentrism isn't an attack in this case, it's an interpretation or an observation. I've not made any other similar charges, so I'm not sure where 'yet another baseless charge' comes into play. En.Wikipedia articles obviously focus on European and American interests, or non-native topics of interest to European and American audiences (otaku, manga etc etc), because that's where most of the editors and users live. I think that because of that, articles outside of the expertise of the core audience should be considered more carefully than the obvious vanity and nn cruft that is more obviously prod'able. I thought that it was more respectful to everyone to shunt the debate over to this forum than to simply override your prod. Richardjames444 15:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I would have been better off citing WP:BIAS as the reason for opposing the prod, since you are sensitive about Eurocentrism. Richardjames444 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Eurocentrism is likely the wrong term anyhow - given the majority of editors are not European, just like the majority of Anglophones, who live right here in North America. WilyD 16:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Unsure Keep - articles like this lead me to believe she is legit WilyD 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- She is one of the socialites of India.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment-She is Amitabh Bachchan's daughter. Enough said.Bakaman _Bakatalk

• Merge Into Amitabh Bachchan or Jaya Bachchan's article. She is non relevant in her own right, except being the daughter the above two film actors. She is also married into a prominent film family and the sister of Abhishek Bachchan, but she is totally unknown outside of Bombay film circles. Also, she is not a big time socialite, since she is rarely featured in Bombay Times which is known for its coverage of social circles and celebrity gossip. But I would like to add, she is not non notable. --Ageo020 23:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V, unless someone gets access to the above-mentioned print-only bollywood publicity. I find little other info apart from a verveonline.com mention. Merge if necessary. --Thunderhead 21:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough of a socialite. Her only claim to fame is being related to famous Indians. As about saving dolphins etal, many people are associated with such causes (includes me). utcursch | talk 12:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Being related to famous people is not enough for notability, but it does go some distance. (see the discussion on royals above.) However, Shweta B-N is, in addition, married to the Escorts heir, and is an individual who thus controls a vast trust-based charitable empire. None of that's in the article, but, presumably, with time it will be. Deleting this would probably be WP:BIAS, its just that I'm too tired to search my mind for a Western equivalent that nobody would want to delete. Hornplease 04:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the normal response to a lack of consensus was to keep? Normally re-listing is reserved for discussions that have been largely idle (only 1 or 2 votes). There are 6 keep/merge votes and 4 delete votes here already. Speedy keep as already finished. -- Visviva 06:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is always a closing admin's perogative to relist for more input. It is also any admin's perogative to decide that there is enough further input to close at any time after the relisting. GRBerry 18:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Socialite? Yes. Notable? No. Nothing she did makes her notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. So, I would say "Delete" without prejudice against re-creation, since she may become notable sometime in the future to deserve an article dedicated to her. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, minor Bollywood celebrity who gets media coverage and thus passes WP:BIO. Also speedy keep per Visiva. Kappa 08:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep and please help counter systemic bias meets bio guideline Yuckfoo 12:43, 28 August 2006 (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.