Talk:Sara Ali Khan/Archive 1

Archive 1

notable rumors

Since no consensus could be reached in the discussion to delete the article, I've tried to make it as accurate as possible. The previous version was stating as a fact that Ali Khan has been cast in Student of the Year 2, but all the sources specifically say that it's an unverified rumor. The article sounds a bit absurd since it's the rumors per se that are notable, not Ali Khan herself. She has never actually done anything, except have famous parents. For her, it's a textbook case of WP:Too soon. Should the article be moved to Sara Ali Khan (rumors)? -- IamNotU (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

As noted on your talk page I emphatically disagree with these changes of yours for the ridiculous focus on her weight and appearance, as well as the emphasis on rumors. All this contravenes WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTGOSSIP. She fails WP:NACTOR since she has not appeared in anything yet. It seems that one of three choices exists: 1) reduce the article to a stub where it will take up space until the subject becomes known for a specific accomplishment. 2) Merge and redirect to a relevant section in one of the parents' articles. 3) Redirect without merging to one of the parents' articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edited my reply, because tl;dr...] It was not me who put the information about the rumors in the article. Since the administrator declined to delete it after an extensive three-week debate, I thought it wouldn't be appropriate for me to go ahead and delete it anyway. So I tried to re-word the text to reflect what was actually in the existing citation - that the reports could not be verified. The citation about her weight and appearance was overly informal, but I had planned to replace it with a reference to an interview with her father, where he openly discussed her weight, in relation to a possible film debut. It was widely reported in the media, seemed relevant and verifiable, and I did not think the topic of a young Bollywood actress' appearance was terribly inappropriate. I may have made a mistake, and it's fine that you deleted it, but you might have given me a chance to address things before making such harsh comments. I put a reply to your other message on my talk page. I won't be involved in this article any further... someone else can figure out what to do about it. -- IamNotU (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

source addition to prove its notability

new sources have been added to prove its notability. The trailer of her first film Kedarnath has released. second film Simmba is under production and trailer will soon release as the release date has been announced. --Insaafbarua (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Repeated blanking

IP editor, in a few edits that are indistinguishable from vandalism, has repeatedly blanked this page based on gross misunderstandings of WP:NACTOR and other policies. RajFilmBuff (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Being IP editor does'nt mean you dont have right to edit wiki, This article fails WP:NACTOR which states the person should have done multiple films/television/theatre. In this case both of her films are unreleased. You are very earlier removed a redirect, [1] and doing edit war with established editors too [2], [3], [4], and there are logout editings too by you [5].119.160.117.2 (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The last edit was done by me at a point where this account was not created. Logout edit?

It was precisely for creating Wikipedia articles I created this account. WP:NACTOR is being misunderstood by you as its only one of the three policies that should be satisfied. Sara Ali Khan satisfies #2.

There's WP:GNG, that's being satisfied in its entirity in this case.

The edit war with the 'established editor' was not just for this case, it was also for creating a draft. The editor later agreed with me that notability was established and quit the revert.

See WP:Articles for deletion/Sara Ali Khan. The article should never have been redirected in the first place keeping the consensus here in mind. So the discussion should now be whether it should be redirected or not, but the article should exist respecting consensus gained at the AFD.

Who said IP editors can't edit? I myself was an IP editor till not so long ago. RajFilmBuff (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 November 2018

This BLP was redirect before the user created here [6], its the case of WP:TOOSOON please restore the redirect as both of her films are unreleased. 119.160.117.2 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As the protecting admin I am not going to handle this request but am courtesy pinging the following users: @Onel5969:, @Bradv:, @RajFilmBuff:, @Krimuk2.0:, @NJIndia:, @PRehse:, @Cyphoidbomb: who have, in my estimation, non-trivially edited this page and may wish to participate in a discussion. If I have missed anyone, please feel to also ping them or invite them to discuss if this title should be an article or a redirect. Best, Mifter (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I have already made my stance clear above. Subject passes notability as demonstrated, has content for her article, and should not be redirected per WP:OSE or misunderstanding of any other policy. RajFilmBuff (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Its not WP:OSE, at that time i was also arged that person's notability when some one created her biography and i thought u will understand because both are the cases of recent debuted bollywood actress, thats why examplify you. Any ways in case of this BLP, it clearly fails WP:NACTOR and we have to wait for atleast the release of her first film. As simple as that. 119.160.117.2 (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This is classic WP:TOOSOON. If the claim of the subject's notability per the lead is that she is an actress, then where has she been heralded as a notable actress? Obviously she hasn't, because the films she is in haven't been released. Notability is not inherited, so being the daughter/relative of whomever doesn't necessitate or warrant an article. This is a puffed up vanity piece that seems to only exist to promote the subject in advance of the film releases, and it reeks of the sort of paid editing we see across the project. I would support redirect until proper notability can be established. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:12, 21 Novemb{{er 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Cyphoidbomb - redirect as per WP:TOOSOON (perhaps - but isn't that what toosoon is for?). Her only notability currently is her DNA. And since notability isn't inherited... well... Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I want to double-down with prejudice, because when we see multiple attempts to create articles on nobodies, our reaction shouldn't be to embrace the possibility that the person will soon be notable, or even that that the person has become notable per the letter of our law. If multiple attempts have been made to establish an article in such a way that it seems aspirational or promotional, and it seems that article creators (or article rejuvenators) are just gaming the system to exploit the letter of our "law", i.e. "Well she has 2 credits in notable projects, so she meets NACTOR," I think that should be strongly discouraged. We are not a social media platform, we are not a Who's Who, and we are not here to provide a promotional platform for people who have met the bare minimum of our requirements. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I am not being paid or asked by someone or anything of that sort. The article is being created purely based on my personal interest in the subject. Just look at the constant attention and hype the subject is receiving in the Indian subinternet. Maybe that's what prompted other creations, and that was long ago and has no relation to this version. No one's exploiting the 'rule of law', I was simply following what was written in the policy. Please point me a single sentence in the article which seems promotional. It took a long time to write and put together sources, you know, and to simply brush it away as exploitation or anything is just offending. Anyway, since many are disagreeing with the article's recreation, I am restoring the draft from which I created the article while the main article may be redirected. Then maybe in December, when her upcoming films are released, then we can all come together and see if she meets notability. Which she most probably will, with two filmography credits, but if you are going to "double down with prejudice", it would be unfair and undue here, when there was no intention of promotion at all. Please consider. RajFilmBuff (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I would wait for a month to move this into mainspace. By then she will have two high-profile film releases, and we will have a lot more to write about than her ancestry. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I think there's consensus here for a redirect at this point, per WP:TOOSOON, and I would endorse that decision. If we need a more formal decision it can go to AfD, but that may make it more difficult to have an article in the future once the subject meets our notability criteria. Bradv 23:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bradv:@Cyphoidbomb:@Onel5969:@Mifter:@RajFilmBuff: Hi all, this is related to another actress, but I think it might still count: how about reinstating Jahnvi Kapoor? Back in September I made a draft/subpage for her, which you can see here. I hadn't made a page before or knew how to get it reviewed/reinstated, so I may have gone a little overboard in the talk page. And on the draft article itself, it may have some needless info so you can eliminate what you need to. At the time I talked to a few reviewers who weren't sure of her notability. But as she's released her first film and now endorses a cosmetics brand, I think it makes sense that now she can have her own page?Rush922(talk) 04:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

[Edit:] Just to let you know - I haven't changed the page myself in a while (I admittedly lost interest after my earlier attempt lost its momentum) - though some others, including RajFilmBuff have done so since then.Rush922(talk) 04:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Mifter, I restored redirect per consensus here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.118.80 (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

 Note: (Non-administrator comment) Closing this edit request as answered since protection on this page has expired. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 10:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2018

First everyone told me that article is not meeting notability and redirected the page and all of a sudden article is created and also protected? What was that? I want to edit the page please unlocked the page as soon as possible SA2019 (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Your account should be 30 days old and you should make at least 500 edits in order to edit the main article. Qualitist (talk)

SA2019 you can post at WP:RFP if you want the protection to be removed. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

SA2019, the article was protected in part because of edit-warring and failure to discuss potentially controversial changes. You can look in the page's history to see edit summaries explaining why many of your edits were reverted. You should participate on this talk page in order to suggest changes to the page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Add new section Other appearances

Please add her appearance on Koffee with Karan season 6 episode 5. Rickyurs (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Rickyurs it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2018

she's only studied in Columbia . Not LSE 116.74.32.106 (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source which clarifies your statement. Tolly4bolly 13:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This link from the article says she has a degree from LSE [7]--DBigXrayᗙ 13:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

User:ABCDE22 (who removed this info) please check the source and comment. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply:- DBigXray, I think that was a mistake in that article. Reasons are below-

• No other reliable source mention about her education at LSE.
• Whenever speaking about her education Sara only mention about Columbia never mention the LSE.
  • check this link Sara Ali Khan Explains Why She Chose To Become An Actress Despite Studying From Columbia.
  • this one also Sara Ali Khan Instagram post on teacher's day

I have removed lack of credible sources and I beleive that the reporter who wrote that article has conflated between Sara and Soha, Sara's aunt. If that was not the case then there would have been a single source except that one which mention about her education in LSE, atleast she herself did.

Well, its her pops who was quoted saying she’s an LSE graduate, so that’s almost as good as her own words. The source doesn’t even mention Soha in passing. RajFilmBuff (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

But, this is the only article where Saif said so, Saif has spoke many time about Sara's education. Like how much happy he is, that his daughter has finished his education etc etc. But everytime he mentioned only about Columbia only in this article he is speaking about LSE and not speaking of Columbia at all, which is quite fishy. Several of time Amrita Singh (Sara's mother) spoke about her daughter's college but never mention LSE and only spoke of Columbia. Which make this article's claim less reliable. And this is possible that the reporter who covered this article has misunderstood Saif. Because it was not transcript of the whole interview. Maybe the reporter has misunderstod or did some error to note proper information or Maybe Saif, himself has conflate or misspoke. Anything could happen. But one thing is sure it is less credible.ABCDE22 (talk)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2018

Replace reference 17, a page specialized for mobile, with its desktop equivalent (cited here). Also, remove 'has' from the preceding sentence, as she has already graduated and the sentence should hence be in past tense. RajFilmBuff (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done here Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Subject now passes GNG based on the significant coverage she has received

Hi all, I have now started article with some copy editing and removal of unnecessary content from article history, the last consensus (in above section) was 2 weeks old, hence stale and a lot has happened in the past fortnight, her film has now been released and the subject passes GNG by a wide margin now. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Consensus established that we need to wait for at least a month when there will be 2 releases. One more release is yet to occur. Qualitist (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI Page views in the past 30 days is 431,219

There is no such rule of waiting for 1 month, please share the link of the one month rule.I am not claiming notability by WP:NACTOR. If you believe the subject fails WP:GNG then I would like to hear your arguments. IMHO There has to be strong reasons to deny this article to so many users. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It does not fail GNG and if others agree then article would be okay now. There is no requirement to wait for a month and I referred to the above discussion where few users preferred article after 2 releases. Consensus can indeed change. Qualitist (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yup and the consensus has changed, stop pointing to stale consensus. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's quite appropriate to have the article in the mainspace now as her debut performance has garnered significant commentary and coverage, and her second release is right around the corner. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion Krimuk2.0, I agree. DBigXrayᗙ 10:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with either option but we should probably hear from other editors who have supported redirect until the subject meets WP:NACTOR. One such example was Cyphoidbomb who said that "our reaction shouldn't be to embrace the possibility that the person will soon be notable, or even that that the person has become notable per the letter of our law". Courtesy ping @Onel5969, Cyphoidbomb, and Bradv: for knowing if they still want to wait until there are two film releases. Qualitist (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

They probably have watchlisted this page, and Pinging only the editors on one side of a dispute is called WP:CANVASSING You should have pinged all if you so desired.--DBigXrayᗙ 10:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Their attention is needed because you restored article against consensus. If you could wait to get consensus then there would be no need for me to ping anybody. Qualitist (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging a specific set of editors was not necessary, what you did was blatant canvassing. Please explain your reasons to skip your ping to User:RajFilmBuff, User:NJIndia, User:PRehse--DBigXrayᗙ 11:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It was necessary because when you are editing against consensus, then intervention of other involved editors should be immediate. Stop derailing this thread and focus on content. Dont talk about editors or their actions. Qualitist (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You are repeatedly skirting my question about the other set of editors you deliberately skipped, you have been warned about inappropriate canvassing and please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Canvassing#How_to_respond_to_canvassing--DBigXrayᗙ 11:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a case of IDHT and incompetence. I will just stop responding to your deliberate nonsense. Qualitist (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I had not watchlisted this page and did not even know such a discussion was taking place! Anyway, I agree with the creation. If anyone would kindly copy the improvements I made to the original draft here (since this article is protected), then it would be appreciated. RajFilmBuff (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC) Actually, never mind, given that Krimuk2.0 has already done it. RajFilmBuff (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes RajFilmBuff, Krimuk2.0 has updated from the draft, if there is anything missing feel free to add. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: If Krimuk thinks there is sufficient reason for the article to exist, (as noted above) then I'll yield. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb, Krimuk2.0, Robert McClenon, and Qualitist: Just a few days ago I also contacted an admin regarding reinstating this page. I tried to reinstate the page but he disagreed. He gave me a clear answer that since she only had 1 film, and NOT 2 (as actor notability rules state an actor needs more than 1 film released), I should just wait the extra few weeks until her second film released on 28 December (Simmba). I conceded and think that's fair. But now if Sara Ali Khan can have her own page now, what is stopping Jahnvi Kapoor from having the same? I have also been trying to get her page up, but it was shot down saying she only has 1 film. So what gives? Rush922(talk) 11:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You have a point here. I am fine with redirect or article and would also like to hear from Robert McClenon. Qualitist (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging two other users to see this...@GSS and Winged Blades of Godric: as they were against Janhi Kapoor's page reinstating. In fact, here is a detailed discussion between us three as to that page/ Just to be clear, ultimately I would prefer what's fair as per the guidelines and common sense. I'm leaning towards keeping this a redirect and not an article as of yet, IF that's the right way to go. I was initially upset about Janhvi Kapoor not having her own page, because she was getting so much buzz on the web. But the admins explained that many actors who only have just one release aren't guaranteed a second and thus their 'buzz' dies down. So I can understand the more-than-one-film rule. Janhvi Kapoor was talked about alot when her first film released, but now only sporadically as she isn't doing much film wise. So should popularity and even people's current interest in the subject now, be as a big a factor as DBigXray says? He wants to apply the general notability guidelines (GNG), but if that's the case, why have WP:NACTOR in the first place? Rush922(talk) 11:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, what's the prospects of creating an article about Taimur? Surely passes GNG by a mile or so.

I am meh as to this article, per Krimuk and evaluate this to be a borderline case. At any case, Pageviews are not an indicator to notability (vide the AfD about Priya Prakash Varrier) ∯WBG^converse 12:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

WBG I am not fan of either Sara Ali Khan nor Taimur. since you pointed about other stuff that dont exist, please note that we have an entire List of viral videos that has so many multiple individual articles. Each subject deserves its own discussion about its merits. And more points are already elaborated by Raj below. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Reading WP:N would tell us that for a subject to be notable, he or she must pass either GNG or a subject-specific guideline (here, WP:NACTOR). NACTOR as a policy cannot be eliminated as you have proposed as its an indicator of notability for those actors who may not have significant media coverage but appeared in numerous films. With regard to Taimur, we cannot really have a Wikipedia article for him as there is nothing to be written other than perhaps one or two sentences. All other web coverage is trivial (he attends baby school, his fav color is pink, he is looking cute OMG and other tabloid-like crap of the sort). That can certainly be merged. But with Sara, we have content to write, something encyclopedic for an article, things like these, so it isn't just a mere case of routine trivial coverage. Based on this reasoning, I feel the article can be kept. RajFilmBuff (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Rush922, User:Qualitist - I am not really sure why I have notified of this discussion. The article has already been accepted. I do not see the point to starting an AFD discussion at this point, and I certainly do not see the point to starting a move-war by unilaterally draftifying the article again. So am I being summoned here someone wants to be able to ignore my comments, or to notify me that I am expected to agree with a decision that has already been made? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

As to the question about an actress who was getting a lot of coverage on the web after one film, I will point out that general notability overrides specific notability guides such as acting notability, but general notability is based on reliable sources, not on temporary web coverage. That isn't the issue here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User:Winged Blades of Godric as to 'meh' and, as I said, am not sure why I was called here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The guideline that I do have a strong view on is not acting notability but film notability. My opinion is that it is widely misinterpreted, whether in good faith or on purpose, in order to give articles to films that are still in production, and that this is usually done not because of general notability but just because some editors like articles on future films. That isn't the issue here. I am not sure why I was called. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Robert, I pinged you here because consensus was not achieved in the decision to move the article in the first place. Two days ago on your talk page, you gave me the specific advice not to create an article on this actress, since as you said she is not notable as per WP:NACTOR until her second film releases on 28 December. But one admin (another supported it later) did so anyway- and it appears they didn't get proper consensus from others who disagree with the ruling, they just did so on their own accord without discussing it with anyone. How fair is it that someone like me (not an admin) would have had to wait, while the admins who decided it was okay - which is against the advice that you (an admin yourself) told me- could make it an article right away without any repercussions? That's not fair and I believe it isn't the way Wikipedia should work. It's a shame that you are hesitant to discuss it or consider draftifying it just because it was already created, because we should be willing to operate on principle of the guidelines, even if they're not convenient. Incidentally, and to prove my point further, here is a draft of another actress, Janhvi Kapoor, who like Sara Ali Khan has only released one film - yet unlike her, her second film won't release until 2020. But she is considered a 'fashion icon' of sorts, who is the brand ambassador of a cosmetics brand and does fashion shows, etc. I wasn't able to get a consensus on creating her page. What do you think about that, in light of the events on this page? Rush922(talk) 16:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray did open this discussion here while the page creation occurred. In the resulting debate, four users supported, one found both options suitable and two don't care about it either way- how does that indicate no consensus was formed? Additionally, both Robert and DBigXray are not admins. In practice, being an admin doesn't indicate any superior power on Wikipedia. RajFilmBuff (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

No, look at the timeline of on both the page's history and when they opened up the "Subject now passes GNG based on the significant coverage she has received" section above. At 09:38, 8 December 2018‎, user:DBigXray started editing the article. At 9:52, he created the new section on the talk page announcing this. By 09:57, user:Qualitist disagreed with him, and two minutes later posted on the talk page as such. Then from 10:16 to 11:22, User:Krimuk2.0 comes in and edits the article freely. During this time, on the talk page DBigXray and Qualitist get into an argument, with Qualitist stating that DBigXray did not wait for consensus before opening up the article, and that he would be pinging others to enlist their opinion. Then, you (RajFilmBuff) came in near the end of that time at 11:19 and announced your agreement. So as of 11:22, the page was fully created and withdrawn from its redirect status, with it being actively worked on at the time, and only three people had agreed (you, DBigXRay, and Krimuk2.0)- with Qualitist disagreeing and waiting for others' input. That is not a consensus. user:Cyphoidbomb comes in some seven hours later at 19:13 and agrees, and the following day (today) I added my input, along with WingedBladesofGodric and RobertMcClenon. The point really isn't about whether the other these last few users agreed or not, it's that you initial three started editing and moving the article into creation a day in advance without any real input from anyone else. You didn't really give anyone a chance to disagree because the article was already created when they got there hours later. THAT is what bothers me. And frankly, I have not known any other article to go from a redirect to a mainspace so suddenly. It wasn't properly discussed at all. Rush922(talk) 18:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Did I contribute to recreating the article? Look carefully before leveling such accusations. Qualitist was of the opinion that both are suitable options and pinged other users, only after which I arrived. If that bothers you, you should clear it with others, not me. Currently, there does seem to be consensus for an article, is there? Or are you disagreeing with the creation? RajFilmBuff (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I never accused you of contributing to recreating it, I only said you agreed to their (DBigXray and Krimuk2.0) decision to do so. My point of contention is the manner in which those two moved the article to the mainspace and began working on it just like that, without waiting for any consensus from others. As for whether I agree or not, I first want to hear from @Bradv and Krimuk2.0:, because in the previous section Krimuk2.0 said "I would wait for a month to move this into mainspace. By then she will have two high-profile film releases, and we will have a lot more to write about than her ancestry." I want to know what makes him change his mind now, from wanting to wait for both releases, to just waiting for one? Is it just the fact that the news is talking more about her, that makes just one release okay? If that's so then Janhvi Kapoor can have her own article as well. Bradv then responded to him: "I think there's consensus here for a redirect at this point, per WP:TOOSOON, and I would endorse that decision. If we need a more formal decision it can go to AfD, but that may make it more difficult to have an article in the future once the subject meets our notability criteria." Since he participated earlier, I'd also like to hear his thoughts.Rush922(talk) 20:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

What should I have figured out from "you initial three started editing and moving the article into creation"? Anyway, thanks for clearing it up. RajFilmBuff (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't look carefully enough it seems. On the edit history it's true you technically didn't do any creative edits between 9:38 and 11:22 on 8 December, but you did comment in the above section at 11:19: "Anyway, I agree with the creation. If anyone would kindly copy the improvements I made to the original draft here (since this article is protected), then it would be appreciated. RajFilmBuff (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC) Actually, never mind, given that Krimuk2.0 has already done it." So basically your intention was to do it anyway and thus agreed with them in principle to recreating the article by wanting to copy parts of your draft. So although I didn't accuse you initially, I can do so now. But you also don't need to be that sensitive - this isn't like you guys vandalized a page or were being intentionally disruptive, i.e. warranting corrective discipline or anything- this is just an overstretching of editing boundaries, although it's still a serious one. I should say that before I realized what you commented in the previous section (I didn't read your strikethrough'd text at first), I was going to apologize here for apparently including you with the other two in that statement you just quoted. That apology still stands, because at the time I wrote it I didn't mean to include you, I only meant to hint that you agreed to what they did. But after re-reading your comment carefully it seems that you also expressed a direct intention to edit it immediately, so I can reverse my non-accusation. Oh well, as I said before in a scenario like this it's not so big a deal who did it, just the fact that it was done. So if @Bradv, Krimuk2.0, and DBigXray: can give their inputs first, both as to why they think Sara is notable now (and especially Krimuk as he earlier said he would wait for her to have 2 releases), and why they kept on editing when there wasn't consensus achieved, that would be better.Rush922(talk) 07:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't for the love of God figure out what you are accusing me for. Asking for copying improvements from a draft to a created article on a talk page is somehow 'against consensus'? Agreeing with a decision in principle is one of the steps how consensus is built on Wikipedia. Anyway, I am outta here. RajFilmBuff (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to ping a couple of more experienced and uninvolved admins to see what they think After talking to an admin, they recommended that I first either go through the RfC process, or the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which is probably the way to go.Rush922(talk) 10:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sigh! This is a classic case of WP:SOURGRAPES: why does this article exist when Janhvi Kapoor doesn't? Cyphoidbomb, I, and the other editors have had our say, and there's no point in repeating ourselves. Also, Rush, you have pinged me no less than 3 times in the last 24 hours. The article is in my watchlist and if I have anything to say, I'll say it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It has nothing at all to do with WP:SOURGRAPES. I don't have need to retaliate to anyone, nor have any special attachment to the Jahnvi Kapoor page- I'm fine with whatever decision is given to it. But I do want any consensus and guidelines to be applied fairly, because that sets a precedent. As for this page, I myself was told on 7 December to wait until her 2nd release on the 28th. But then all of a sudden you and DBigXray can create it without any consensus? Something's off with that.Rush922(talk) 08:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

For those who want to join, a dispute resolution page has been created hereRush922(talk) 11:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Noted. User:Rush922--DBigXrayᗙ 11:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We do not require a dispute resolution when Rush922 is currently the only user who is on the other side of the dispute and leaning somewhat middway. It also screams of WP:LISTEN. Currently, out of the 13 users involved, no one has blanket opposed the article's creation, and a majority have supported creation. It indicates a consensus. Rush himself has not clarified their stance. The policy was already clarified by Robert above. That simply indicates there is no dispute. As for Janhvi Kapoor, that's WP:OSE and needs to be settled at that talk page. RajFilmBuff (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We certainly do require a dispute when two users went ahead and created the page WITHOUT getting a proper discussion going BEFORE doing so. The discussion was had DURING their editing process- it was literally going on at the same time. You call that a consensus? And 13 users, eh? Half of them only came into the conversation, myself included, the day AFTER you, Krimuk2.0, and DBigXray edited and opened the page up in the first place. Even Qualitist had his doubts about what DBigXRay was doing and told him as such. There is still very much a dispute, even if there isn't in your mind. You are welcome to express yourself further on the Dispute page.Rush922(talk) 12:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Please tell me how many users are currently opposing the article's creation. We currently have a consensus with more participants than the previous discussion. I still don't get why you are accusing me of creating the article again and again, when I have clarified myself. RajFilmBuff (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

AfD

There's nothing wrong with informally managing an article via the talk page, but if the existence of this article is still contentious, it needs to be formally resolved at AfD. There is no other way to enforce a contentious redirection.  Swarm  {talk}  12:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2018

The birth year of Sara Ali Khan is 1995 and not 1993 as per many of her interviews. Please update that. For reference, you can have this link: Parami.roy (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Her DOB per the time of your post was 12 August 1995. What exactly do you want us to do here? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2018

Sara's age is 25. Please change her age to that. Girls should not be encouraged to tell fake age. ArielleKate (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2018

NirmalNath123 (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- Flooded with them hundreds 13:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2019

age=25 Ankitp245 (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bradv🍁 05:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

BeingSallu please gain consensus for this version instead of blindly reverting. How in the world does Wikipedia:BECONCISE apply here? The article is far from being unnecessarily long. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I've long read WP:GACR, which I know you are aware of, mate, since you nominated the Kartik Aaryan article for it. I didn't blindly revert, the version history shows that. The intro and early life paragraphs are pretty much the same info in my edits as before, I sought to reduce mentioning the same info over and over. The info about the film's ban has nothing to do with the actress herself; it's only filler. WP:BECONCISE requests the information to be focused on the topic, doesn't only refer to the article size. The article isn't unnecessarily long but the details about the ban are unnecessary. Therefore, in accordance with both WP:SS and WP:BECONCISE, I sought to remove it. Have fun, BeingSallu (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The lead is a summary to the article, not a "repetition". Also, how is information related to the difficulties in making her debut film not necessary? It is the reason why she was sued by the producer, which is mentioned in the next paragraph. Removing this information results in no context for the later information. The details of the ban too lend heft to the text, so that it is more than just a listing of her roles and reviews. See WP: FA-class articles like Deepika Padukone and Sonam Kapoor to see how the career section needs to be written. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The intro or "lead" mentions parents AND grandparents. The grandparents part is an extra level of detail that is unnecessary in the intro given that her ancestry is expanded upon in the Early life section. The first paragraph of the career section doesn't mention that the filming was suspended. To provide context, without going into unnecessary detail which can be found in the film's page, you could write "She began work on it when filming of Kedarnath was temporarily suspended because ...". Lines of details about the film's release is going into a level of detail that is not in accordance with WP:SS and WP:BECONCISE. I'm actually familiar with Padukone's article (thanks for your contributions to that). Take for example the paragraph about Padmavat. All but one line is about her and even that line is contextually a continuation of the previous few. Nice talking with you, BeingSallu (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7khun 2019

106.67.31.137 (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Please direct article requests to WP:Requested articles. aboideau^talk 11:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Age

Sara Ali Khan is 25 years old. Many sources, including Khaleej Times ([8]), The Times of India ([9]), The News International ([10]) and The Telegraph (Calcutta) ([11]) report her age as 25. Even Wikipedia reported her age as 25 before she appeared on an interview with Daily News and Analysis and called Wikipedia as “a liar” for representing the sources correctly.([12]) After this incident someone changed the age to 25 citing the interview. This is one of those numerous cases where actresses lie to prevent being victims in an ageist industry. If she is 23 as she claims, then there are numerous contradictions; she would be far too young to have gained admission at Columbia University unless she is a child prodigy or something. Does one of the girls in this picture look younger by two years to the other? Maybe there is a chance for yes since each person has different ageing curves but when viewed in the light of the above evidence its a no. Her age should be written as 25 or atleast as a range. 2.51.187.111 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

You say that "she would be far too young to have gained admission at Columbia University" Actually, no. One is admitted when one is 17 and graduates when one is 21, which fits perfectly with her current age. Also, we aren't forensic scientists to guess a person's age by looking at photographs (like, seriously!) And finally, believe what a person says about his/her own age unless there is hardcore evidence to prove that one has lied. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources are what matter. If there are enough reliable sources that gives the other age, the way to go may be to include both. Are there any RS that has written in plain text that the younger age is wrong? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources mentioned as her older before she gave an interview clarifying her age. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The News International source is from 17 December, but The clarification interview is from 10 December.2.51.187.111 (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

But does any source say that she lied about her age? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe no, but many sources continue to report her age as 25. Other sources: CNN-News18 from 5 Jan 2019 ([13]), Times Now from 19 December 2018 ([14]), Deccan Chronicle from 25 Dec ([15]), etc. So in all, many say 25 years. We don’t need to say she lied, just something like she says she is 23, some media reports place the age at 25 or like that. 2.51.187.111 (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• A person's birth date is considered to be a part of their private life. I feel we should state the date/age which she identifies with. All others are simply speculating even if they are reputable sources. DeluxeVegan (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know any WP chapter and verse on this besides WP:BLP, but I can see the argument that her age is an encyclopedic fact that we should get right if possible. She is a public person that has spoken about her age in at least one interwiev, that is not "private" life. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The right word to use here in place of private might be personal; the best person here who would know about her birthdate is herself, and there should be no reason to not trust her word unless a source has openly expressed qualms about it. Some websites have stated her age to be 25 post-clarification, but that might stem from misinformation as Google’s Knowledge Graph hasn’t been updated yet. Do note that the first version of this article to mention any date placed her age at 23, which was conveniently vandalised by an IP who increased the age by 2 years. Both edits took place in 2017. We have no sources published before this revision that state her to be two years older, but here’s Femina calling her a 21 year old before both revisions, back in 2016, which would make her 23 years in 2018 (and early 2019, upto her birthday). Her clarification was also directly aimed at Wikipedia, so I am seeing a strong case of WP:CIRCULAR here, from Wikipedia to Google’s Graph where it has stuck around for long enough to be copied by other sources. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

This article from India Today clearly states her to be 16 in Jan unary 2012, thus confirming her to be 23 exactly 7 years later in Jan 2019. Rik SC (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rik SC (talk • contribs) 18:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Amrita Singh gave birth to their 1st child Sara Ali Khan in "1993", this can be found and confirmed in several new papers and online articles including wikipedia. Case closed! It is impossible and No actress can hide the year she gave birth! Amrita singh gave birth to 1st child in 1993! And second child 2001 Zarooni603 (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

WP and other usergenerated sources do not count here. What else have you got? Only WP:Reliable sources, please. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

She's 24 not 25 or 23 Hussainsaif158 (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2020

Vishnuespicy (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Sara Ali Khan and Kartik Aaryan have become the talk of the town, as the Love Aaj Kal trailer has hit the internet. The makers of Love Aaj Kal released the trailer on YouTube and it has  garnered over 23 lakh views and over 129 thousand likes by the fans. One of the major highlights of  Love Aaj Kal trailer in the lip lock between Sara Ali Khan and Kartik Aaryan.  The movie is directed by acclaimed filmmaker Imtiaz Ali.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2021

Change 12 August 1993 to 12 August 1993 223.177.218.191 (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◎ | melecie | t 00:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

She is married or not

She is married or not 36.255.170.54 (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

NOT 110.173.188.234 (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)