Talk:Divya Gokulnath

Order and Formatting of Awards
Hi, the WP:LOW guideline "aims to create a consistent method of displaying lists of works, such as lists of texts, discographies and filmographies," and does not appear to apply to awards. I formatted the awards list in reverse chronological order, but I also placed the dates first in the sentence for easier reading, both of which seem common in awards lists, and I placed the awards/honors in alphabetical order for awards given in the same year. I also had added another award that has now been deleted without explanation, and the alphabetical order and placement of the dates have also been reverted without explanation. I would appreciate further discussion about this, because the guideline you have cited does not appear to apply to the chronological order of the list, and content and formatting has been deleted without explanation. I think that placing the dates first in the sentence and placing the awards/honors from the same year in alphabetical order seems like something that would help readability, and I also think reverse chronological order makes sense for awards lists, and I am not aware of applicable guidelines to the contrary. Beccaynr (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC) I had also adjusted the description of the MAKERS award so the awarding institution was listed first, so it would be consistent with the rest of the list, and I think that should be restored as well - my interest is in consistency, readability, and highlighting notability. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , if you want to list them by alphabetical order instead of chronological, then that's fine, but please don't do reverse chronological. Wikipedia is not a resume service. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I did find WP:SALORDER, which states Chronological lists, including all timelines and lists of works, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order, and this seems more clear. I had favored reverse-chronological order because I was thinking about the essay WP:WAW, which seems to have a general theme of emphasizing notability; I would hope my editing history demonstrates that I recognize Wikipedia is not a resume service. Anyway, I also found MOS:LISTFORMAT, which states, List items should be formatted consistently in a list, so I will edit the list to always place the granting institution before the award provided. Because this is a timeline, I will also list the dates first, because this is how I have typically seen it in other articles, I think it benefits readability, and you have not offered an explanation for why it should be otherwise. Please let me know here if you have any additional questions or concerns. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , that depends whether or not she gets the same award on different years, but I don't think that's an issue like the sports stars. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 05:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't believe I have ever worked on an article for a sports star, which would help explain why I have not typically seen awards listed otherwise - thank you for sharing your perspective. Beccaynr (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Soapbox
In an edit, Before the COVID-19 pandemic, she worked long days at the office, but during the lockdown, transitioned to working from home was removed because it reads like soapbox. Similarly, in another edit, ...and co-written an opinion article with Byju Raveendran in Vogue India about educational technology in India. was removed because it is soapbox.

I'd like to hear why you think otherwise,. Thanks Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The first edit summary linked above states "rmv fan-cruft. everyone wfh during the pandemic, and "long days at the office" is [wp:weasel] for "avoid going home" ;)", not WP:SOAPBOX. It was not only this line that was deleted, but also multiple independent, reliable sources that supported the line: "Before the COVID-19 pandemic, she worked long days at the office, but during the lockdown, transitioned to working from home.  ", and therefore clearly did not appear to be WP:FANCRUFT, due to the sources and neutral writing. Per the WP:NOCRUFT essay, what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there is no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted, and due to the sourcing and writing style, I reverted it. Now WP:SOAPBOX is raised as a concern, but this is a BLP, and a neutral statement about how the pandemic impacted her career based on independent and reliable sources appears to avoid WP:SOAPBOX concerns. In this edit, you also removed content that was specifically written because the date of birth of her second child is not clear based on the source,  "and then her second child was born near the beginning of 2021. " and added WP:OR instead, so this was also reverted.


 * The second edit summary linked above states "rmv wp:soapbox content "The power of education and technology can transform our country", but the content was removed from a paragraph that begins, "Divya also writes online, including about the future of education, parenting, and women's participation in STEM fields." The deleted line is a reference to something she wrote with her husband, referred to neutrally as "and co-written an opinion article with Byju Raveendran in Vogue India about educational technology in India." From my view, it is part of her career, similar to the type of content that is routinely included in BLPs, and the WP:SOAPBOX policy states, Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this, warning against writing Opinion pieces as articles, so it does not appear to be a sufficient justification for deleting the content. Beccaynr (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 1. With fan-cruft I meant written by a fan, in an non-neutral tone. long days from the office is soapbox, working from home isn't noteworthy (who else in tech wasn't working from home?), and any number of reliable sources don't make it encyclopedic, which is not simply everything that's in the news. born near the beginning of 2021 *is* In 2021. That was a copy edit, not original research. I mean, if I claim early 2021 is 2020, then that's not only original research but also fringe.
 * 2. If only Wikipedia was an incessant collection of every opinion piece an individual wrote... It isn't. The article in Vogue India doesn't strike me as notable, if it was, it'd be covered by multiple third-party sources. To me, inclusion of the article is also an attempt at citation bombing. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. As explained above, WP:SOAPBOX addresses articles written as opinion pieces, not neutral content from independent and reliable sources. Also, independent and reliable sources help us determine what is notable and encyclopedic, and WP:NOTNEWS asks us to create an encyclopedic context. Please also review the source on the birth date for the second child, because I think the issue with the birth date will be more clear after that.
 * 2. WP:BASIC includes Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject, which implies that notability is not independently required for each item when building a BLP. Context is provided for the inclusion of the information, so from my view, it is not indiscriminate. It is also not clear to me how WP:REFBOMB factors in when her notability already seems well-established, and the article remains readable despite the inclusion of this example of her work. Beccaynr (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2. WP:BASIC includes Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject, which implies that notability is not independently required for each item when building a BLP. Context is provided for the inclusion of the information, so from my view, it is not indiscriminate. It is also not clear to me how WP:REFBOMB factors in when her notability already seems well-established, and the article remains readable despite the inclusion of this example of her work. Beccaynr (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Byju's OOS

 * |In an edit, During the COVID-19 lockdown in India, it provided free access, and added 13.5 million users in March and April 2020, for a total of 50 million, and reached 70 million students by September 2020, and 4.5 million subscribers. was removed because information about Byju's in this context doesn't belong in an article about its founder. Thoughts? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit summary linked above states, "wp:fancruft excess info about byju's does not belong in this article", but due to the neutral writing and reliable sourcing, was reverted. You also added what appears to be WP:OR by adding text that can be read to imply she began her role in 2020 when there is no source indicating when she started in her role, which was also reverted. In the essay now linked as a concern about the inclusion of the general content, WP:OOS includes, Use the most general scope for each article you can. Since Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it's supposed to summarise essentially all knowledge. Hence accidental or deliberate choice of a limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible. Since the primary purpose of the Wikipedia is to be a useful reference work, narrow article scopes are to be avoided, and this seems to support including some limited content about the company itself, in the context of her role as manager of user experience, content, and brand marketing. Wikipedia is also WP:NOTCV, so contextual information seems important to include in BLPs when describing a career. Therefore, when looking at the paragraph and article as a whole, it seems beneficial to include the content from independent and reliable sources discussing her accomplishments. Beccaynr (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no point of neutral and reliable writing, when the content is out of scope. I can write neutrally and reliably 25 things about Divya's hometown. It wouldn't automagically bring it under scope of this article. And which part of user experience, content, and marketing tie into  (unless the supporting citations credit Divya with improving those numbers)?
 * Fortune India How is it original reasearch to claim  supported by a citation authored in 2020, which goes,  . smh. Please stop quoting random policies without due diligence. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * From my view, the content is within scope because it is derived from independent and reliable sources discussing her accomplishments, so it belongs within her BLP, which includes a discussion of her work, which includes a discussion of what she has accomplished. And there is no source that clearly indicates when she began her role, so to edit it to state "As of 2020" could be read to imply that is when she started, which is not based on any source currently available. It is written generally due to the lack of more specific information, and I think WP:OR warns us against writing text that could be read as more specific than the sources support. Beccaynr (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your view, thankfully, is just that, yours. Remember the onus to have the content included is on you. The cruft about Byju's user-base does not belong in this article. And since you seem unconvinced of it, I see it fit to solicit opinion from an uninvolved editor. Besides,  also means on and not just from, but I can see why anyone could be confused. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors. I have provided my perspective on why it is beneficial for the encyclopedia to include limited content from independent and reliable sources that discuss her career accomplishments, and you have provided yours. While I am open to changing my perspective, I do not feel you have offered a basis in guidelines or policy for me to do so, and as noted above, the essay you cite appears to support inclusion. Beccaynr (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here to provide a third opinion. I think it's fine to include her career accomplishments. The sentence in question should be included if it is rephrased as such. As it currently reads, it is an off-topic description of some of the company's accomplishments, not indicating that Divya improved these aspects of the company. ParticipantObserver (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ; I have made a revision based on your suggestion and the sources, and I think the article is now more clear. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ; I have made a revision based on your suggestion and the sources, and I think the article is now more clear. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliable reference
1, 2 how Khaleej Times and Business Line are not reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:6030:3011:7CEE:B468:85D7:A604 (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Why this content should not go with the article?
 * Gokulnath is also the founder of BYJU'S social impact "Education for All (EFA)" which was started in 2022 to increase access to education for underprivileged children in Uttar Pradesh. and Lionel Messi is the first global ambassador of the campaign. 2405:201:404B:C:F9E4:51F5:481A:95BD (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Divya Gokulnath in 2022.jpg