This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Hello merlinVtwelve. Thank you for the explanation. The definition of the opening paragraph in Wikipedia is a little different. It should sum up the entire article in a couple of sentences. It is not about enticing in the way that Merriam Webster defines. And regarding the income raid tax: as I understand it is still under investigation, which means that it is not ready yet to be part of her article. The same as when a court hearing is opened. It's news in an encyclopedic sense when the verdict is spoken, not before. But it's true that there have been allegations of embezzling donations for a long time. One might argue that many newspapers write about this so it's ok to mention it. --Gereon K. (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gereon K. I'm familiar with the usage of 'lede' within WP and some editors use it instead of 'lead', but you did not seem to be familiar with the word itself. The subject and her relatives are controversial figures. These are much more than 'allegations' as have been reported the past. These were actions by an official government body - including raids and multi-million dollar property seizures across around 40 properties owned by Preetha, and her notorious husband and father-in-law. As the result of an official judgement, she has been barred from leaving the country, which belongs in the WP article, and the raids provide context. These raids were widely reported across all major media outlets in India, and additional sources can be provided if necessary. BTW, Wikipedia is not a marketing tool, and I don't know why her personal website appears twice in such a short article? merlinVtwelve (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Her website is not there alone. It provides just one view, that of her own. If it was the only source it would not be valid. Since it represents one side of the medal it should be mentioned in the article. Each Wikipedia biography article and each company article contains the website of the subject. --Gereon K. (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
