Talk:Devita Saraf

i have give References for most of the articles and This article appears to be written like an advertisement what should i do for this Shravanshetty502 (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Gyaantech (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Which article? Electric Catfish 15:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

ElectricCatfish - this article

This article needs a lot more references, and needs to be written from a neutral point of view. Mdann52 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I had given references in regards to Interest and Hobbies, the notable being the Asia Wall Street Journal, why was that deleted.

for this page. Please also tell me how can i remove the above notifications/warning.thanks. Cyberhawk 5 (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't remove the warnings without fixing the problems that were in the warnings. Floating Boat (the editor formerly known as AndieM) 11:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised this article is up for deletion. She owns a big electronics company in India and has been given awards by the president. About 50 people a year get awarded by the President. To top it up, she is a very known figure in the business circles. Forbes has covered her multiple times. (Krawtani2600 (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC))

The state of the article

Please, to the main contributor: This article reads like an advert. Statements like "..has adeptly steered Vu Technologies to claim its place at the fore-front .." are very unencyclopedic. Please, just stick to the facts, and write from the point of view of an arch rival. Also, the punctuation is either missing or in the wrong spot in many instances. Please put references after punctuation. Also, please ensure that there is a space after a full stop, before the next sentence. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have given Reference for all the statements. for some statements i don't have online reference so how can i upload a PFD file. Now the page is as per Wikipedia guidance. Please remove this {{multiple issues}} from Devita Saraf wiki page. Shravanshetty502 (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have made some changes in accordance to the feedback given , added more references and streamlined the content as per encyclopedia format. What further can i do. Cyberhawk 5 (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Cyberhawk,your edit history shows you have not edited this article at all.[1] As other have explained, the Wikipedia article need to be factual balanced articles using reliable independent sources. While it no longer looks like a resume, this article still looks like it exists to promote Ms. Saraf and seems to depend mostly on press releases. You need to show substantive interviews or other coverage in independent sources. Edward321 (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Cyberhawk and Shravanshetty, a couple of things

1. You do not have to post a Helpme request every time you have a question.
   
2. Please post new posts at the bottom of the talkpage so the posts will be in order from top to bottom, the oldest at the top the youngest at the bottom.
3. Please put your signature at the end of your posts, not the beginning.

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes from next time we will not out the help tagShearonink. But you did not replied our query so please help.

1. Hi, I have made some changes in accordance to the feedback given , added more references and streamlined the content as per encyclopedia format. What further can i do to remove the above message Shravanshetty502 (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How to remove the above warnings

I have given enough references and validations from Devita Saraf page, however the warnings dont seem to go. Please reply how to remove it

• I have edited the article to remove promotional tone and present the article as appropriate for an encyclopedia. I have also removed references that were either press releases or self-published. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. Please do not add anymore "help request" templates to the discussion page. Just talk. Other editors are watching this page and will be able to respond directly, without the need for alerting the entire community. Hope this helps. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 11:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Cindy for doing the necessary.

Vu Telepresence

Just wanted to inform that Devita Saraf is also the co-founder of Vu Telepresence http://www.marketwatch.com/story/vu-telepresence-announces-multi-party-multi-vendor-video-service-through-vidtel-2012-05-08 http://www.channelprosmb.com/article/29749/Vu-TelePresence-Offers-New-SMB-Conferencing-Capabilities-via-Vidtel/ Cyberhawk 5 (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberhawk 5 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Mensa Certificate

I have give the Reference from the top Newspapers of India for Mensa Certificate of Devita Saraf.User:Edward321Shravanshetty502 (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a Resume

The whole article seems like a resume , i really doubt the notabality of the person . most of the sources linked to papers states of being a participatory in an event ! !! . and also most of the articles stated in the news papers does not have any neutral tone may be a work of personnel marketing executive , would like to discuss think about doing an AFD for this article Shrikanthv (talk) 05:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

One can not harm an article by the AfD route. By proposing it the article gets a fair hearing and either survives or does not. A valid result is that notability is established, verified and the article is improved. Another valid result is that it is deleted. If you have the doubts that you have expressed then propose the article at AfD. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Devita_Saraf for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Devita_Saraf is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devita_Saraf until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. please contribute Shrikanthv (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't work, I'm afraid. Please follow the full instructions at Wikipedia:AfD#Nominating_an_article.28s.29_for_deletion to the letter. If you are having problems please use your own talk page and place {{helpme}} there followed by a description of your need for help. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have placed the flag in the article itself for you. It has to be in the article, not the article's talk page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

in process give me some timeShrikanthv (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Pruning and references

The article's Vu Tech section had links to loads of irrelevant press release style write ups of loads of irrelevant products. I've pruned that part of the article. Other parts have links to some sources that appear to be pure PR pap and puffery. They are carried in reliable sources, but that makes them no less questionable. Such links bring the notability of the person who is the subject of the article into question. It would be ideal to replace them with substantially more authoritative sources. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

removal of Degrees

Should we remove the degree and cources that she has taken ? as it is not qouting any source ? Shrikanthv (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Any item stated as a fact that has no reference may be removed by any editor at any time. A better approach is either to seek references from others using {{cn}} or to find those references. As this is Wikipedia nothing is lost when things are removed. They are all in the article history. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

but dont you think the fact stated should be relevent to be even there ? , or it may give wrong analogy.

e.g

1) has done Game theory course in london ,

2) has opened new technology company VU tech

both statment are different and do not relate to each other 2nd being stated in various sources and first being self published .

doesnt combining both sentences in a article, makes it a different tone of meaning all together ? Shrikanthv (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a need to document facts in such a manner that the juxtaposition of two facts does not create one or more greater fact that does not exist independenty. That would be Synthesis of published material that advances a position. You have identified this correctly as a bad thing to do. In part this comes down to a judgment about whether an individual fact is notable. Some time ago I judged the gae course not to be notable. I deleted it and no-one reinstated it. We have an apparent consensus, nemine contradicet, for that removal.

If it is judged to be relevant to put the fact of the game course in, and also the Vu Technologies material in, they need to be separated such that no conclusion is drawn that Vu is, for example, a Game corporation (assuming that it is not).

So you are wholly correct in your assertion that facts must be relevant in addition to being notable and verifiable, together with their not synthesising Original Research. This can lead to a fragmented article when one is as short as this, with facts being displayed as bullet points. There is no harm in doing this, though it detracts from the overall readability of the material.

Equally one must not tear down material that appears to be capable of being verified. Google, for example, is not the be all and end all of verifiability, and some primary sources, such as degree lists from a university are entirely valid to use as citations, though sources reporting in the primary sources are preferred.

Does that help your thinking? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

Amazed that no one talks about the possible fraud committed by their company Zenith Infotech — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.151.125.43 (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Removal of maintenance tags

Please disucuss here before removing multiple tags Shrikanthv (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of judgment tag

why there was a removal of judgment passed by court, unlike accusation this was a judgement by a court please discuss before removal Shrikanthv (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss here

Please discuss here what needs to be added, seems like POV push Shrikanthv (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Article new look

Hi, i've checked most of the information and wanted to give the article a new look, those banners at the top didn't look nice. Please le me know if you would like to see further changes. I've deleted some info that I wasn't sure that they were true, at least completely. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senhashiw (talk • contribs) 17:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

A couple of things - this page does not talk about Devita. It is talking about her companies. That information should be on the company page not HERE. Her career includes the awards she has won. There needs to be a section on her recognition. Her controversy when she took out a full page ad with Trump. That became big. There should be a section there. (Krawtani2600 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC))

As they are her companies they should of course be discussed here some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Devita Saraf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924031515/http://www.hrcollege.edu/web/images/Newsletter_October_HR_2014.pdf to http://www.hrcollege.edu/web/images/Newsletter_October_HR_2014.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)