Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vineeta Singh


 * 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. There seems to be a consensus here to Keep this article despite the varying opinions on the quality of the sources used in the article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Vineeta Singh

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A non notable businesswoman with the only claim for notability being a judge in Shark Tank India which is not enough to establish WP:GNG. The subject has no significant coverage and the article contains PR sources. Some sources are just routine announcement of her participation in Shark Tank while some other have only brief mention about her. Thesixserra (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC) ___________________________
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Television,  and India. Thesixserra (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep is my vote, as could be expected for I am the initiator of the article. I believe the article qualifies for WP:NBIO as the subject is:
 * Widely covered in WP:RS with explicit mentioning of the the subject's name and her individual thoughts and deeds. These sources include:
 * India's most important general printed news papers: Times of India and The Hindu.
 * Basically every business-related digital/printed Indian news outlet. (Challenge: try to find one that does not speak about the subject!)
 * A full chapter dedicated to the subject by the authors of the book: The IITM Nexus.
 * As mentioned in Thesixserra's deletion request: the subject is a judge on the Shark Tank TV show. In countries that enjoy a better representation on Wikipedia (i.e. USA, Australia), all resident judges have their own article on Wikipedia. In my opinion, WP:BIAS is the reason that this is different for the equivalent Indian subject. However, notability is by no means limited to the Shark Tank appearance. Other topics covered include (all of which reported by WP:Secondary sources explicitly naming the subject):
 * Her founding and CEO leadership of a company (i.e. Sugar) with more than 1750 retail outlets in more than 100 cities.
 * Her three business-related awards with nation-wide impact (none of these is related to her Shark Tank appearance).
 * Her rejection of a job offer, which was considered significant enough by Times of India to report on it in 2006, mentioning her name and quoting her ideas around it.
 * Her activism for the empowerment of underprivilidged women (many verbal quotes in feature articles in reliable secondary sources).
 * Her views on entrepreunership and marketing (many verbal quotes in feature articles in reliable secondary sources).
 * Her father being a famous scientist.
 * Her appearance in the Indian Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (admittedly, this was related to her Shark Tank role).

On a personal note: I spent one day initiating the article and now again two hours for the rebuttal of this deletion request. I would like to leave it with this and subsequent casting of my vote, wherever required. If other editors arrive and there is consensus to delete - so be it. If there are founded concerns of WP:SOAP, I recommend WP:BOLD to improve the article. PR was certainly not my intention and should be removed, if present. However, as I am not aware, which specific statement is meant, I advise Thesixserra to edit the concerning sequence(s). T om ea s y T C 11:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

___________________________

I will respond to all of your arguments individually.
 * 1.all resident judges have their own article on Wikipedia- Being a judge in Shark Tank do not guarantee anyone a wikipedia article and you are simply talking about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
 * 2.Her founding and CEO leadership of a company (i.e. Sugar) with more than 1750 retail outlets in more than 100 cities- This does not count towards notability. The subject need significant coverage to meet WP:GNG which is clearly missing here.
 * 3. Her three business-related awards with nation-wide impact- All these three are some non notable awards given by some private organisations. The awards itself dont even have a wikipedia article. I'm wondering why you are saying that the award has a nation wide impact.
 * 4. Her rejection of a job offer, which was considered significant enough by Times of India to report on it in 2006, mentioning her name and quoting her ideas around it.- Not even a proper reason to keep an article. Her name is mentioned in brief with some routine coverage. Again fails to meet WP:GNG
 * 5. Her activism for the empowerment of underprivilidged women- This is somewhat a good argument. But again the citations are weak PR puff pieces with some mentions on her and do not give significant coverage.
 * 6. Her father being a famous scientist.- Notability is not inherited as per WP:NOTINHERITED
 * 7. Her appearance in the Indian Who Wants to Be a Millionaire- There are like hundreds of participants in this show. Do they all have a Wikipedia article. Thesixserra (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep either this article or an (as yet unwritten) article about her company Sugar (company), which I've just added to Sugar (disambiguation). Not sure there's enough notability for both person and firm. Pam  D  15:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Seems notable based on the coverage for being on shark tank (I'm thinking WP:NCREATIVE) plus general notability criteria due to the articles talking about her business and media work. One was behind a paywall and one relied on interviews, so I say "weak" because of that, but seems like the type of person that an encyclopaedia user would want to know more about, so I think the encyclopedia is better to have this article than to not have it. CT55555 (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep, she seems to have an interesting career. The sources are not the best, but it's enough to build a bio for the wiki. Also, we're trying to combat gender bias/ethnic bias on Wiki. She's a female judge on a non-Western television program, I can't see how deleting this helps combat either type of bias. Weak GNG at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * She'll have some recognition from the media appearance, which helps in a small way make her more notable. She was also basically told she wasn't important without her husband's involvement, that's also a form of gender discrimination. We can talk about it here, perhaps help combat it in some small fashion. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - whilst she seems like a fairly minor celebrity to me, it appears that there is enough media coverage of her life to meet the GNG. For example this in GQIndia. Taken with various other interviews in national media and a few more in-depth pieces about her history, in my judgment it is enough. JMWt (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That GQIndia source states it is a "repost from Humans of Bombay" (wikilink added) and includes churnalism, e.g. "Speaking to HT, she said..." and "According to a recent CNBC report, Vineeta Singh was paid...", includes a quote from her, and the entire article (excluding the Instagram posts) is 6 grafs, with a brief overview of her career and biographical information. Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I find significant coverage on a regular basis in reliable sources. The sources are well reputed Indian NewsPapers & business magazines. The coverage is specifically talking about Vineeta's journey quite extensively. Burfi (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Im not sure whether it is relevant to say this here. But this is Burfi's first edit in 12 years since making their last edit in 2011. . They have only made 99 edits so far. Thesixserra (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sure that you know yourself the answer to your "wondering"! Of course, it is not relevant. Relevant is only the content, facts & constructive edits that make better articles. Personal opinions, mistrust etc. are just derailing the discussion.
 * If the opposition to this article is really heading to arguments of this sort, I want to propose to rather conclude this discussion with a clear decision and move on. Instead of wasting each other's time. Burfi (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - Source Assessment Table is provided below. RPSkokie (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As the 6th and 7th sources are being cited to support the statement that she has appeared on the cover of those titles, how are they "unjustifiable"? Pam  D  06:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose what we need is something pertinent, like a text that is easy to read and which discusses Vineeta Singh. I am not aware of the extent to which visual identification can function as a justifiable reference. My understanding is that way, and it's possible that you could improve upon it by adding something that would make it more meaningful. RPSkokie (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the link, and also linked to the profile of her which was included in coverage of the Forbes W-Power list. Pam  D  10:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Smile Foundation link doesn't mention Singh (though describes what Smile Foundation is, which is useful), but their LinkedIn page does and seems to be a RS to support the statement - have added it to the article. Pam  D  15:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Understandably, there may be differing opinions on the reliability of LinkedIn or any social media post as a source. Nonetheless, I appreciate your addition to the page. RPSkokie (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by Source Assessment table? You present this as if it was the outcome of a technical and objective algorithm. However, it appears to me that it is nothing but your personal opinion on the sources, especially, in context of this particular person. Let's use facts and not personal opinion. The same sources like national newspapers have been used for other prominent Indian figures. Why are we questioning their credibility of here when these are all of the main English language Indian news papers? Burfi (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would kindly recommend that you take some time to read and investigate the notes added next to each source in the source assessment table. Please be assured that the information contained in this table is not a reflection of my personal opinion, and the majority of the analysis (about the sources) are based on guidelines provided by Wikipedia. RPSkokie (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I had looked at your table. To say the least, the column "Pass/Fail" is very arguable, personal judgment if you ask me. What does this even mean: the source fails? Fails what? Your approval? Some reliability criteria? Fails to prove the content referenced? There are sources where you tick all categories green, only to conclude fail. How does this make any sense? Anyway, let's not go into that, because more importantly is ...
 * To look holistically: Singh's coverage regularly goes beyond short mention into detailed articles on her entrepreneurial achievements, female empowerment visions, education and career decisions, and/or about her TV representation. This includes quotes from interviews with her but also text written by editors.
 * Then, I think we are mixing up two things here: the notability or the quality of sources. To see more clearly, it would be good to look at both separately.
 * Regarding Notability:
 * Vineeta Singh is covered in various newspapers - basically all Indian newspaper of national significance. Tell me which one has not a story on her? Building a sizeable business from scratch which gives employment to thousands of people and known at the national level where big players already exist (such as Unilever, L'Oreal, Lakme) is definitely notable. Clearly, notable enough that she is interviewed continually by various news outlets, or that her company has become a case study of the best business schools of India, or that she is asked by Sony TV to be one of the judges.
 * Regarding Sources:
 * Take any article about a living Indian person and you will see that its sources are very similar to the ones used here. If you want to play it hard on WP:RSPSS, then almost all Indian sources, and thus all Indian bio-articles, would have severe issues. Maybe this is rather an issue of WP:Bias toward Western media or a quality issue of Indian media - whatever... We have to live with the sources we have in India, and still build a Wikipedia that covers Indian topics sufficiently.
 * In my opinion, Enterpreneurs are underrepresented at Wikipedia, especially when it comes to female entrepreneurs. For me, this is an important limitation to be addressed. It takes sweat to build a company of that size from scratch, and it is recommendable to to something for the average Indian women.
 * How much better could we have all used our energy improving the article than wasting it on this discussion? When I see the effort you put into your assessment table, it just makes me sad why this effort cannot be spent constructively. Read about the subject, find the better sources that you are missing, and edit text that broadens the content based on theses sources. Just an idea ... Burfi (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * From my view, 's analysis demonstrates how the subject of this article has a particular challenge due to the many unacceptable sources that 'fail' our guidelines for the independent, reliable, and significant coverage necessary to help support notability. The effort and time spent analyzing sources helps protect the encyclopedia and helps improve the article. Beccaynr (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't really understand why interviews in national newspapers are somehow not a signifier of notability. Some of the sources above (specifically newspapers and magazines in India) have editoral staff that's independent of the source, it's not advertorial (or paid for by the subject as far as I know). If they've chosen to interview the subject, that suggests they think the person is notable. JMWt (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I am really surprised that we are discussing the notability of her for two weeks now, when almost every reputed Indian national newspapers (The Times India, The Hindustan Times, The Hindu, The Financial Times) publish about her. Out of many, just one example, On Dec 30, 2022, The Times of India has an exclusive article on her, the content of which could actually double our article.


 * Out of 100s of entrepreneurs and founders, she is one of the 6 sharks who was got to the SharkTank on Sony TV. So, the Indian media considers her notable enough to publish about her, but here at the English Wikipedia we are discussing the quality of sources, credibility of her work and Journey. A journey like hers should be talked about more and we need more female role models on Wikipedia, especially in area like economics.


 * She has been in news continually since 2006, 2013, 2018 for various reasons, rejecting a lucrative job offer from Deutsche bank to running marathon when pregnant, to building Sugar & recently almost everyday because of Shark Tank. Getting a big investments by L Catterton in her company and by a popular Bollywood star.


 * She has been in the news even for various types of marathon races - maybe something that the article should still cover as it symbolises her vision on women strength, motherhood, independence, and health. Burfi (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Dec. 30 2022 WP:TOI source might as well be a press release promoting season 2 because she "spoke exclusively to ETimes TV about her experience of being associated with the show in season one and two and what the second season has to offer" - there is no secondary context or commentary from the source to support notability. The 2023 Economic Times source is a brief mention "On her 13th Mumbai full marathon, Singh took a break from her 'Shark Tank India' duties to finish her run in four plus hours, as she had expected". The 2022 Entrepreneur source is by a contributor, and per WP:RS/P there is a consensus that "contributor" pieces in the publication should be treated as self-published, similar to Forbes.com contributors. Editors did not provide much evidence of fabrication in their articles, but were concerned that its coverage tends toward churnalism and may include improperly disclosed paid pieces, so it should not be used to support notability. The 2018 Mid-Day source is 3 paragraphs, mostly based on her quotes, and reports she ran a marathon while pregnant, so this is not significant independent coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment When I started Vineeta Singh, I forgot to link to it from other pages. A few days ago, I linked from the Shark Tank article. Since then, Singh's article attracts about 800 views per day, which is a pretty substantial number. I think this also demonstrates the relevance, besides other arguments above. T om ea s y T C 07:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per burfi and beccaynr, the sources seem reasonable enough for notability and in general its good to err on the side of keeping articles which represent gender diversity.   BogLogs (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:BASIC, with respect to the source analysis by, which raises important concerns about support for notability from many sources. From my view, there is 2006 coverage in the Telegraph that is more substantial than the TOI mention, and I think this source, combined with other sources per WP:BASIC, helps support notability. The 2021 Forbes coverage is bylined to a staff writer and includes biographical, education, and career coverage that can help develop the article - she is quoted in the article, but there is secondary content. The 2022 Business Today coverage is based on an interview, but the source is covering her speaking out about gender bias, in her past and present, and seems different from the much more promotional coverage related to Shark Tank in some sources. Reviewing the 2022 GQ source again, it covers her being covered in Humans of Bombay, and mentions her net worth "becoming one of the hottest search terms right now" and the churned news from CNBC is about how she is "paid Rs 5 lakh for every single episode of the most popular reality show in the country right now." While not sigcov, it seems like more than trivial coverage. My !vote is weak because there are many promotional sources related to Shark Tank and her business, and independent coverage appears limited. Beccaynr (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2023 (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.