Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devita Saraf


 * 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. The article definitely needs some help, but consensus seems to be clearly keep. (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy  ✆  ✎  02:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Devita Saraf

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Reason 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 nor any news may be a work of personnel marketing executive as it only speaks about her company and what it does and about her fathers legacy. it seems an editor has been sock puppeting to add information to the article and the reason for blocking him seems to be that he confirmed that he was payed for changing the article please refer to link and new link so please contribute if you think it is important to be kept, also please keep in mind on future possibilities if teams are hired to make changes in wiki for google page ranking(seo) Shrikanthv (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep which I say with some regret because it seems clear to me that the article was spawned by 'hired help' to create an article on Wikipedia way before the subject would have come to notice. A major contributor has been indef blocked for sock puppetry and has also uploaded a swathe of promotional pictures of this person, her business and her father. Emotionally that sways me against the article. So I have checked more than half the references to determine if the subject passes WP:GNG. I feel annoyed that it is a clear pass, and that she is not only notable but is verifiably so. The articles in which she appears may be puffery but they are puffery in reliable sources in sufficient volume to be proof of notability. This annoyance is caused by the way the article came to be edited, not by the lady herself. She appears to me to fulfil all the criteria for an article here. My own prejudices against the major contributor(s) are irrelevant. I believe the article does read like a curriculum vitae. That must be addressed, but it is not of itself a reason for deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Although at first glance it seems as confirming to WP:GNG it is going in wrong direction with what wikipedia is not and is definitly against WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:PROMOTION, i am stating that as a self promotion as it can be proved that there was herself involved in the article Shrikanthv (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from. The article does require improvement. It is not against the rules to self promote, but it is judged to be unwise. Even if the lady is indulging in self promotion, if the article is valid then it is valid. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep She was named one of the 25 most powerful women in India by a reliable newspaper, she's covered in several different reliable sources. She clearly meets WP:GNG. Despite what some people may think there is absolutely no rule forbidding paid editing on Wikipedia. There never has been. As long as she is notable, there should be an article. Now, you're more than welcome to make edits to the article if you feel it's promotional; it does look like some of those sources might not meet WP:RS, but there is absolutely no policy based grounds for deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - explains the rationale well. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment please note that statement of "was named one of the 25 most powerful women in India by a reliable newspaper" is linked to an external source which is stating the list of speaker and is not linking to any official list or the said news paper or the broad casting network   Shrikanthv (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. I can't find any online reliable source for the statement (though it appears in so many publicity notices I can't imagine it not being true). --regentspark (comment) 17:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. One source does put her in a list of "25 power women of the country". Not sure if that's the same thing as "25 most powerful women in India".  At best, it amounts to "Saraf has been called a power woman by India Today". Seems like a fluff piece. The rest of the sources are all either pr pieces or fluff pieces (what's in her laptop). --regentspark (comment) 17:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The "what's in her laptop" is a detailed piece in an independent reliable source about the subject. The SiliconIndia piece is short and part of a bigger collection, but still points to notability; the same can be said for the economictimes, coolavenue, and India Times articles. Please, everyone (I'm referring primarily to the proposer here), put down the natural distrust of paid editing, and follow policy: there is absolutely no prohibition on people writing about themselves. If you think the article isn't neutral, fix it (though it may be easier to wait til the AfD is done). If there's puffery, remove it. But until policy changes (and it won't--several site-wide RfC's have shown majority support for the idea that paid/involved editing is fine as long as other policies are followed at the same time), who created or edited the article is absolutely irrelevant to the question of deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No as a proposer the whole idealogy was not to go against paid editing ( as i respect if some one is hiring people to improve wiki ) but against some one saying

1) attended queen mary school in Mumbai, 2) attended H.R college of commerce and communication 3) made course on game theory and strategic thinking at the London School of Economics.(and prooving this from giving reference from list of particpatory details in an event ) 4) won award 1 & 2 "not" refering to any official list (e.g IT People's IT Woman Leadership Award own by her refering to a page were "some one " has made an interview with her ) but where is the offical award page ? 5) not ever involved in any news or events that is known to Indian public.

I guess all this above are going against No original research as, if we are considering the newspaper online article as a primary source there are no secoundary or any other source to confirm this. (E.g this also means if i am able to publish some article in newpapers about my conquest in olympics, i will be able to write an article about myself saying olympics names "ss" as youngest one to be in top 25 athletes in the world. )

Was really against the above things and not against paid editors adding content. But i am ok if the AFD comes out as keep, as this will set standards on the quality of reference that can be used i8n future Shrikanthv (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're actually confusing the two terms; a list from the college or "official Award page" would actually be a primary source, and Wikipedia prefers to use secondary sources like newspapers. So, yes, if a newspaper that met our reliable sources guidelines said that you won an Olympic event, then we might include that; of course, if we had multiple other sources, including reliable ones like the IOC data or other news sources that said differently, then we probably wouldn't. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Shrikanthv: Please note Qwyrxian's "Wikipedia prefers to use secondary sources". Primary sources can perfectly be used for stating straightforward statements of fact. So if ABC won some award and the official award page says so, its sufficient. However to add that "this award is the best ever" you would need secondary sources. Also to establish notability of award, because sports competitions held in your colony also give awards, secondary sources are required. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Perfectly notable enough to stay. Many newspapers have written about her. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Though it does read like a CV, but seeing her here, shows that she is notable enough; having said that, the article needs a rewrite! --Ekabhishektalk 04:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Blow it up and start over. I think the subject's notable, but the quality of the article is terrible. A boat   that can float!   (watch me float!)  08:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable article with reliable sources. Torreslfchero (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.