Deletion of Devita Saraf

Comment: which I say with some regret because it seems clear to me that the article was spawned by 'hired help' to create an article on Wikipedia way before the subject would have come to notice. A major contributor has been indef blocked for sock puppetry and has also uploaded a swathe of promotional pictures of this person, her business and her father. Emotionally that sways me against the article. So I have checked more than half the references to determine if the subject passes . I feel annoyed that it is a clear pass, and that she is not only notable but is verifiably so. The articles in which she appears may be puffery but they are puffery in |reliable sources in sufficient volume to be proof of notability. This annoyance is caused by the way the article came to be edited, not by the lady herself. She appears to me to fulfil all the criteria for an article here. My own prejudices against the major contributor(s) are irrelevant. I believe the article does read like a curriculum vitae. That must be addressed, but it is not of itself a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: She was named one of the 25 most powerful women in India by a reliable newspaper, she's covered in several different reliable sources. She clearly meets . Despite what some people may think there is ''absolutely no rule forbidding paid editing on Wikipedia''. There never has been. As long as she is |notable, there should be an article. Now, you're more than welcome to make edits to the article if you feel it's promotional; it does look like some of those sources might not meet , but there is absolutely no policy based grounds for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:RS)