Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devita Saraf (2nd nomination)

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. Per consensus Philg88 ^♦talk 08:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devita Saraf

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Request from subject article received at OTRS Amortias (T)(C) 16:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Legacypac (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article needs copyedit, but the sources are good and I've added a few more. She passes GNG completely. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I think the article needs to be re-evaluated for the tags on the top of the article. I don't see any evidence of personal research. I've tried to address the copyedit issues and as per BLP I think I'm removing the somewhat "criminal" implication of Vu tech at the bottom. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see why so called "criminal" implications should be removed. She was a named accused by SEBI and being founder and what-not of Vu these things should be mentioned. Btw, if you guys have not been through the history then let me put it her that the subject and her paid editors seemed to be very much happy until the article had tons of trophys and copyvio images and all glitters. I and few more editors cleaned the resume and in that process added some "negative" aspects to the biography which prominently featured in top google hits about Saraf. Its since then that we have seen sock traffic removing this content. I have lost my access to OTRS for inactivity and wanted to ask @Amortias: if the OTRS mentions any reason for deletion of the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: I'll have to chek if we can release that and I'll get back to you when I can advise further. Amortias (T)(C) 16:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cant advise further other than that they requested it be deleted, they haven't given permission for their specifics to be released. Amortias (T)(C) 17:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it's not really about her and I think that BLP need to be treated with caution. Sorry you've had issues with socks, but in other discussions of BLP where "criminal" issues came up, they were to be treated very carefully. If the consensus is keep that info in, I understand, since it's sourced. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. The content issue can be discussed on the talk page sometime. But I see no policy based reason from anyone here and as no reason from OTRS can be divulged I see no reason to keep the AfD going. Keep it is. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the only notability is that she is a woman ("Woman Leadership Award"). Otherwise the person is an average executive. 22:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC) (missed sig: Staszek Lem (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Response to "unsigned" she's notable for WP:GNG, not because she's a woman CEO. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing wikipedia and real life. Not to say that I am entitled to my opinion, based on what is written in sources cited. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep I believe as the article seems currently convincing but I'm also willing to change if others show and think otherwise as frankly I'm not entirely saying keep. Notifying the only considerably still active 1st AfDers Timtrent, Sitush, RegentsPark, Dharmadhyaksha and Ekabhishek. SwisterTwister talk 02:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brought here by SwisterTwister's ping, I see no reason to change the rationale I expressed at the first AfD nomination. Like it or loathe it, she passes GNG. I don't recall any objections from the subject in rosier times (ie: before the various recent allegations), although it did appear that there was some COI editing going on. People can't have it both ways. - Sitush (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This discussion should be closed. 1, 2, 3. Marvel Hero (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amortias: What do you mean by Request from subject article received at OTRS? Marvel Hero (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvel Hero: The subject of the article has requested the article is deleted and the request has been received from an e-mail that can be verified as coming from the person who they claim to be. Amortias (T)(C) 16:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to my comments at the prior AfD. I offer the same reluctant keep. Fiddle Faddle 17:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As in prior AFD: "Leading ladies:They're the 25 power women of the country" India Today 2010 story. So let's drop the notability issue once and for all, and start getting this article in shape, messy. Those who have time that is. --Ekabhishek^talk 06:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: being the first nominee myself have seen sources have grown with time , so no doubt KEEP Shrikanthv (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.