- 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. MBisanz talk 03:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Falguni Nayar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nayar worked in a bank. She left. She started a cosmetics company. None of this is anything exceptional, and is a normal WP:ROTM career. Very PR filled referencing, but also WP:BOMBARD. 22 PR or similar references for half a dozen short paragraphs? I sample checked them. Fails WP:BIO, and is a promotional piece FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am the reviewer of this article. I had accepted it after discussing with the editor who submitted and also told them it is CVish and could be improved. I felt that article was notable but very recently I had some new epiphanies and hence, my perspective towards this has changed. In principle, it does seem to qualify WP:BASIC but the independence of the sources here is questionable and they seem to be driven by PR agencies rather than an honest interest of a journalist in the subject. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - she's on a list of firsts for one of the world's most populous nations - "the country's first woman-led unicorn." [1]. "Feels off" isn't a great justification for deletion, and "does seem to qualify for WP:BASIC" means this should be a keep. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hopelessly promotional The sources do not jutify what the articles says or implies. L
- a/ Fortune India did not call her the most powerful businesswoman in India, it ranked her 20th, up from 21st the previous year. It's one of a half dozen cateories, 40 under 40, 30 under 30, th next 500 etc.--all of whichare prmotional gimmicks desiged by PR people and publishers to geneate publicity. The evidence for that is what the "article" says "Her company’s focus on authenticity and commitment to customer experience" --that's not journalism, but advetising. I presume they copied it from the press release the publicist gave them, because who else could have written something like that? .
- b/ Economic Times is a video of a promotional speech she gave--everything it says,she or her pr people wrote themselves.
- c/ Vogue is a colletion of publicity stills of various entertainmentfigures with a few other people such as her added at the bottom as a pretence at verisimiltude--the prose is what you'd expect from the source--extravent puffery--and compare the "photo" of her with the real video in b, and judge if the text is any more reliable
- d/ Forbes Asia, again, one from a list, this time of 25. At least it's a straightforward blurb,as such things go
- I could go on, but I think it makes the point. the other refs fit exactly into one of another of these patterns.
- looking at at those just added--I can't see Bloomberg, can the editor who listed it tell us what its says beyond the headline or did they not read it either? gq is a dead link. ndtv is apromotional interview, apparently reprinted from Bloomberg, where she says whatever she cares to: ""Our message to women has been that the spotlight of her life should be on herself. You are important in your story and should feel no guilt at being center stage,” Ms Nayar said in a recent interview with news agency Bloomberg." If that's the nature of the Bloomberg article, it's the classic form of a promotional interview that fails NCORP and shouldn;t be taken as reliable for any purpose.
- As for being a unicorn, her firm did not become a $1.2 billion company by her efforts--her firm received the money as an investment from other firms. Looking at the articles carefully, her main business has yet to break even. Making a profit is the standard of sucess in business, not just taking other people's money who presumably hope that one will.
- WP to be sure goes by news accounts, not intrinsic value, but a news account is only honest if there is somethig behind it. The standard for an unreliable source is when there's no actual basis behind the verbalism. She did have a previous career in an invesment banking firm, but there's no evidence it was significant--she apparently didn't get written about until she entered cosmetics, an industry notorious for extravagent hype. (It is possible to become actually notable in it, of course, and many famous women and men have, but one first has to be sucessful at it, not just sucessful at paying for PR)
- This isn't the least unique to India--the level of the PR here is very skilled and polished, up to the international standard. We should treat such articles in all countries equally, by removing every article with a basis like this. -- DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I attempted to make the article less promotional and provide some more context. I will keep working on it until there is a consensus. Just because she received investment money doesn't mean it is not from her own efforts. GQ is not a dead link I was able to access it again and cited new information from it in the article. The Bloomberg article was substantial about the upcoming IPO of Nyakka and who owns it. Here are some pieces of information about her:
- When India’s beauty retailer Nykaa opens its initial public offering to subscribers next week, it will catapult founder Falguni Nayar into India’s rarefied league of billionaire women.
- Nayar’s Falguni Nayar Family Trust, the family’s Sanjay Nayar Family Trust and seven other related entities hold about half the stake in the company, whose shares are expected to start trading on Nov. 11. India’s stock market has rallied 27% this year, making it fertile ground for a string of blockbuster listings.''
- It also talks about how rare it is for an Indian woman to be a billionaire:
- Savitri Jindal -- who with her sons controls the OP Jindal Group -- is the only Indian woman on The Bloomberg Billionaires Index, a ranking of the world’s 500 richest people. Her $13.3 billion net worth ranks her No. 10 in the country. There are three other women worth at least $2.5 billion, according to Bloomberg.
- And it mentions that the company is profitable. FiddleheadLady (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SURMOUNTABLE GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She is the subject of multiple articles and meets WP:GNG. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She just became a billionaire worth over $7 billion on 10 November. Plenty of coverage outside India as well. [2][3] EcoWizard (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She clearly passes WP:NBASIC based off of the coverage... in the article's sources. The Mint piece, while absolutely fawning, is still a feature piece on the individual by an established WP:NEWSORG. Similarly, The Economic Times covers her with a largely positive feature piece, and that is an established WP:NEWSORG. These two are bylined pieces, and alone would be sufficient to pass WP:NBASIC on their depth alone. Taken together with the Bloomberg pieces and the CNN Business profile mentioned above, it's crystal clear that she passes WP:NBASIC. Like Gorillawarfare, I believe that the other problems present are WP:SURMOUNTABLE and that deletion is inappropriate for a notable person like this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Its passing wp:gng, and too easily WP:NBASIC. Behind the moors (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of the sources above, CNN contains a very small amount of content, Economic Times might be better used to justify an article on the company, Bloomberg is a self-serving interview where she says what she wants to, and the Mint artcle is in this case beneath contempt. Possibly she is important enough that non-promotional sources will appear in the future.
- There are of course two other approaches to inclusion:
- we include every billionaire on the assumption there will be sources
- we include everything a significant number of people want to include
- Either would make more sense than this sort of attempt to discriminate which of a batch of promotional sources is sufficiently non-promotional . DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2021 (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.