Talk:Sheela Murthy

Notability and Advert maintenance templates - Request for comment

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are articles about Sheela Murthy in the New York Times, MSN Money, The Baltimore Sun, The Economic Times, Business Monthly, and The Hindu (among many others.) To be clear - these are articles about her and her work (as opposed to articles that merely quote her while she discusses immigration issues.) Please review the Notability standards. She clearly meets these standards.

As for reading like an advert, feel free to make edits and changes as necessary. When I wrote this entry, because I have a conflict of interest, I purposely had it reviewed by an independent third-party editor. (See the history in talk.) But, if you have any specific examples of suggested changes that should be made, please suggest away (or simply make the changes.)    Joel Why? (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've posted on Matuko's talk page, directing him to this discussion. I haven't heard back yet. But, I don't feel it is appropriate for me to remove the tags that user added without having a more objective editor chime in. So, I am posting a request under the Request for comment page for another editor to review.


 * Again, I work for the subject of this article; so, when I created this page five years ago, I posted on one of the help pages (maybe the Conflict of Interest page? I honestly don't recall, since it's been so many years.) I disclosed my CoI and asked for an independent editor to review.Kumioko volunteered. I made a couple of tweeks, and that was the end of it. (Please note that although I do work at her firm, I am NOT a paid editor; I was a Wikipedia editor long before I started working here. That's what gave me the idea to create the article. This is not part of my job duties, etc.)


 * Anyhow, I completely take issue with the lack of notability assertion. A quick Google search should put that issue to bed. As for reading like an advert, again, please make changes as you see fit. I refer to her as a 'philanthropist,' which obviously paints a rosy picture of the woman. But, she's won a bunch of awards specifically for being a philanthropist. Her firm is famous, especially because of its online presence. Again, I've documented the various articles that discuss this. And, the awards I've listed are all awards she's won. (And, if I wasn't busy doing other things, I could add a bunch more.) Still, since I'm not entirely objective about this, I have no issue with other editors making changes the present the information in a more neutral fashion.    Joel Why? (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sheely Murthy is notable. The issue of articles being promotional/biased is entirely separate from the issue of articles not focusing on someone/something not notable. It is frustrating to see Wikipedians constantly conflate the too and nominate articles for deletion when they should not be deleted. As far as notability, there are articles about Ms. Murthy in prominent and reliable publications such as the New York Times, MSN Money, The Baltimore Sun, The Economic Times, Business Monthly, etc. etc. So she definitely meets WP:GNG.  She is a lady who worked tremendously hard and earned her notability. She won numerous awards/honors.  Her website as the article notes, is the most trafficked legal website in the USA and gives away a huge amount of free legal advice. In addition, she gave back to community as a philanthropist.  There are people far less notable and far less worthy to have a Wikipedia article than her. The lady is a pillar in the community. desmay (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am removing that tag.


 * Definetly Notable, not an advert  d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  15:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Notable. The article is only mildly of an advert nature, and yes, it could use a bit of work in that respect. However, the article's topic itself is pretty notable, definitely more so than a score of other Wikipedia biographies. The fact that the article is up for deletion is only evidence that (let's face it) there's no such thing as zero bias. Best, Liam Gibson (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Noteable Summoned by a bot. While the page has somewhat of a WP:PROMO tone to it, she still meets the criteria for WP:GNG. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 17:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A few suggestions for improvement
Per the discussion on my talk page here are a few things that might help the article. Other than these minror things the article looks pretty solid. Kumioko (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Generally the lead does not need references because it should summerize information already in the article so the information would be referenced in the article.
 * 2) If we could combine the sections for Early life and education and expand them a little more on her early life it would be helpful.
 * 3) If there are some high profile cases she or her firm participated in you could talk about a couple of those and how they turned out.
 * 4) There are a few places were it needs to be toned down like "struck out on her own", "honoroed with", etc. It reads a little like a resume so it needs to be a little more Encyclopedic.
 * 5) If there is another picture or 2 that would be good as well.


 * Thanks for the input! I should be able to do most of the changes you've suggested. Only thing I don't think I'll be able to add is the 'notable cases' issue. The vast majority of immigration law doesn't take place in a court room; so, you don't have many notable "cases" in the traditional sense. But, I'll see what I can dig up.    Joel Why?  talk  14:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)