Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mona Shourie Kapoor
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. JohnCD (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mona Shourie Kapoor
- Mona Shourie Kapoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined prod; person of possible but undemonstrated notabilty; questionable sources that do not fully support text: WP:BLP PhGustaf (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She's obviously a decently covered person in Bollywood. Many of the "references" in the reflist are no references at all and the article obviously has a strange, possibly conflicted, angle but she seems to meet WP:GN. The tone and content of the ToI article indicates that she should be a person known to those reading the article and she's also seems to have received some decent coverage on "scene" sites. This indicates to me that the principle barrier to verifiable notability is linguistic and not substantive. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My concern here is less whether she's notable than whether there are enough sources to make a BLP on her. The article contains much not in the sources, and the sources are pretty bad. PhGustaf (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the most immediate and policy compliant solution is to simply delete any information that is not covered in the refs that are recognizable as reliable sources. If the remaining info doesn't garner the consensus to keep the article then so be it. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good advice, and I followed up on it. Trouble is, none of the references said much of anything reliable, and it would be rude to delete almost the whole article. One purpose of an AfD is to stir up persons trying to save the article. If that happens, fine; the process is working. But that person is not me. It would be good if the OP were to post. PhGustaf (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @ User:PhGustaf With respects, consensus across multiple discussions has shown that even though that is often the result, AFD is not meant to be used as a tool to "stir up persons trying to save the article".[1] While myself quite guilty of cleaning up and saving many articles others may have in good faith thought totally hopeless, [2] I do not wish that any AFD, including your own good faith nomination here, perpetuates the myth that AFD is intended to force improvements by making WP:ATD "somebody else's problem". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good advice, and I followed up on it. Trouble is, none of the references said much of anything reliable, and it would be rude to delete almost the whole article. One purpose of an AfD is to stir up persons trying to save the article. If that happens, fine; the process is working. But that person is not me. It would be good if the OP were to post. PhGustaf (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the most immediate and policy compliant solution is to simply delete any information that is not covered in the refs that are recognizable as reliable sources. If the remaining info doesn't garner the consensus to keep the article then so be it. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP: the new source and external link to her official company website (www.future-studio.net) is a credible source. It lists her company profile, and her personal profile as an investor. if the article can be cleaned up, there may be no need to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abk2129 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Under her maiden name she has plenty of coverage from 2001 through 2009, and thus meets WP:GNG. Yes, the article is in desperate need of a cleanup, but such is a surmountable issue and not cause for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP the new source and external link to her official company website (www.future-studio.net) is a credible source. It lists her company profile, and her personal profile as an investor. if the article can be cleaned up, there may be no need to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abk2129 (talk • contribs) 11:22, June 14, 2010- With respects to User:Abk2129, only one "keep" per customer. I had to strikeout one of them. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:22, 14 June 2010 (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.