Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seema Rao


 * 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. consensus is GNG is met.... but evidently significant cleanup is needed. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Seema Rao

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Simply put, not a notable person. Article does not meet Wikipedia standards, and my claims made by herself or Mr. Deepak Rao are provably false. A charlatan. Please see the talk page on the article for more information regarding these claims/statements. Feel free to tag me in any discussion. BasicsOnly (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Your account on Wikipedia has been singlemindedly with the focus of deleting these pages with unproven allegations and repeated attacks. You’re challenging legit references and pointing to forum threads started or popularised by yourself as proof. Hardly the process to file for deletion. Edifix (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're one to talk about singlemindedness. 64 edits on Wikipedia since 2013, 60 of them have been related to Mr. Rao and his family. What exactly is your connection with Mr. Deepak Rao? I advise all viewers of this article to go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepak_Rao#Vendetta and read the rest of the conversation. I am fairly certain that Edifix, modyyash, and Anu231 are paid actors.


 * Keep AfD is not cleanup. It might well be there are unverified claims made, which is the point of WP:RS. However, we can verify that she has won the Nari Shakti Puraskar award here and has had significant multiyear media coverage, thus meeting the GNG.


 * Whether this person is an entertainer or something else is not an issue for AfD. --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the official Indian Government page concerning that award, it is given to up to 50 women EACH YEAR in India for contributions towards the cause of women and equality in India. Mrs. Seema Rao was awarded for supposedly creating an anti-rape self defense system and for being a female trainer for Indian Soldiers, however I would contend that neither is particularly Wikipedia notable, and moreso her accomplishments only exist because herself and Mr. Deepak Rao have made such audicious claims about their supposed qualifications, yet these qualifications are fabricated. They do not exist. Additionally, are we to allow Wikipedia pages for each of the 50 awardees every year? 500 Wikipedia pages over the last decade just to cover awardees of a political award granted solely to champion the cause of equality? I think that would remarkably short sighted. Additionally, her contributions might have even caused women to be MORE at risk in dangerous sexual assault situations because she does not actually appear to have ANY verifiable martial arts history or background upon which to build a safe and effective self-defense system. Not to mention that all of those news articles are only considered notable BECAUSE she is a woman, not because she is notably good at any specific skill or trade, and all are based on an expressed skill set and background which is entirely fabricated. I just do not understand the rationalle behind allowing Mr. Deepak Rao and Mrs. Seema Rao to use Wikipedia as their personal advertising platform to make money off of people who don't know any better and to put those people at physical risk at the same time. BasicsOnly (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete the article is not backed by adequate 3rd party sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

All Articles in attributing Look Promotional I correspond with the other writers in the Favour of Deletion of this promotional sheet. I have no individual solicitude or Issue with this couple at all. I have high respect for their hard work as they claim (if proven by them on the ground). BUT, The wiki may not be the right platform to create a promotional profile, Article. The Article miscarries Precedence (notable) and trustworthiness of most utmost of the links stated in the Testimonial segment. I completely agree with the point of view of Sir BasicsOnly and Sir Materialscientist. I am late to Wikipedia but an old soul on the planet of Internet and Internet Etiquettes (Protocols). I concur with my superiors and esteemed advisors (Sir BasicsOnly and Sir Materialscientist ). They are senior guides who have designated points to a farthest professional manner. I do click with all genuine concerns and axiom of complete clean up of Promotional Profiles from Wikipedia. Another legitimate solicitude is one of the profiles who is bootlegging all links repeatedly to the answers and yielding the erudition as it is the same person. One of the Raos?. That is not an argument for me at a secluded level but of direction, would be at Professional Front for sure. Let's come in the unrestricted and have a fair consideration in regards to the Testimonials have been claimed in Articles. Let us have a legitimate prospect to comprehend this couple better with the official records. There are a lot of claims/Rumours about the unsaid unwanted charges on them? But as far as the Notability is provided and the Wiki policy is NOT misused and formed, I do not have an Issue, But for the next time. This time I correspond with the Seniours and propose to Delete. User:DeepaMourya

Must Delete as maximum Articles in attributing Look Promotional DeepaMourya (User talk:DeepaMourya) 19:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Other information: I have also found a previous successful Articles for Deletion post regarding a page Mr. Deepak Rao created himself for advertizing purposes in bad faith that also contained votes to delete the pages for Mr. Deepak Rao and Mrs. Seema Rao from several parties. Please see the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advanced_Commando_Combat_System#Advanced_Commando_Combat_System,_Prof._Dr._Deepak_Rao_&_Dr._Seema_Rao As well as another example of bad faith editing regarding the Rao family as well as another historic suggested deletion request for Deepak Rao and Seema Rao:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advanced_commando_combat_system_(2nd_nomination)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prof.Dr.Deepak_Rao_%26_Dr._Seema_Rao — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicsOnly (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Winning Nari Shakti Puraskar is sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO #1. There seems to sustained coverage meeting WP:GNG as well. AFD is not cleanup. If it's unsalvageably bad, it can just be made into a two sentence stub with what she won and why, the Nari Shakti Award win is well-verified. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep mainly by virtue of winning the Nari Shakti Puraskar and media coverage as a (rare) female combat trainer for the Indian armed forces. For the record, see also my comment at the related Deepak Rao AFD, where I have outlined the considerable promotional SPA/COI editing and sock-puppetry surrounding this subject and the need for maintaining strict sourcing standards for this article. Abecedare (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to meet WP:GNG fairly comfortably with the sources provided. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 16:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Could potentially Draftify as well regarding concerns on the promotional tangent. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 16:18, 19 May 2020 (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.