Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prem Kumar Sharma (astrologer)


 * 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 delete. Yunshui 雲 水 08:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Prem Kumar Sharma (astrologer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and has been written as a WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Abishe, Can you please tell me where is the promotional tone in the article as you mentioned it is written as promotion. And did you go through all references? Please check again these resources which are on trusted websites and independent reliable. If you are not agree with any resource please explain why it is not fit for the article. I would focus you on his notable predictions for popular actors and worldwide coronavirus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeotanPix (talk • contribs) 06:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete - This is a promotional piece and falling under WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. I wonder who gives him the Dr tag. Is there any references for this claim? - The9Man  ( Talk ) 06:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The9Man, you stated that article is promotional. Where is it promotional? Can you please explain? Did you go through all the references. I am sure you didn't check all the resources which are independent and reliable on trusted websites. Please check the list i mintoined above in my comment. If you are not agree with any resource please explain why it is not fit for the article. And for your information Prem Kumar Sharma is a PhD degree holder in Astrology, clearly mentioned on these websites: 1 2 3 4. That indicates he can write Dr before his name.NeotanPix (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The all 4 links you mentioned are unrealabile primary sources, one is his own website. My simple question is who awarded him the PhD and where is it mentioned? - The9Man  ( Talk ) 07:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The9Man, i am not talking about these four references. I am talking about the references that i mentioned in my my above comment. If you are not agree any of those references. Please explain why? And for your information you must be aware that Phd degree is awarded by a recognised university not an individual. And Dr. Prem Kumar sharma done his Phd from Medicina Alternativa Institute Europe and affiliated T. I found this information from his website. and no-one can't add wrong information on his official website.NeotanPix (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have gone through each and every reference you have mentioned in the first comment. Those are the coulums he writes on the websites or passing mentions. Please share if you have secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. I suggest you to go through WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO to understand the requirements of BLP better. And when I asked 'who' I meant which university only. I am sorry if it wasn't clear for you. Since you have revealed the university which has given him the 'PhD', here are few references you might be interested to look at.




 * And I don't understand what made you believe that no one will put the wrong information on their own website, anyone can add misleading information on the website for their own gains. Please see WP:SELFPUBLISH. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 18:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)



http://www.skepdic.com/diplomamill.html http://burmesewithfakephds.blogspot.com/2011/11/phd-alternativa-medicina-medicina.html https://degrees4sale.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/asian-degree-mills-since-1960s/

My friend The9man, The above resources you provided are not on trusted websites. These are free blogs anyone can create easily to publish their views for down anyone's image. But the institute is not a fake it is affiliated with The Open International University for Complementory Medicines. And you still not checked all the references which i shared in my very first comment, which are independent and reliable. If you are not agree with any of the mentioned resource you may give a valid reason why it is not acceptable? You are still unable to answer for all of the resources that i mentioned.

As you questioned the Phd degree is fake, you may refer the [website url] where the pictures are available for PhD degree and convocation of receiving degree by Prem Kumar. And pictures can't be fake.NeotanPix (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't say the Ph.D. is fake, but surely this is not a notable or reputable university in the world. I shared the links to have a look at the public opinions. Btw, why do you think I didn't go through the references you have already shared? How about sharing a few secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject and close this argument?
 * Your desperate attempts leans to more of WP:COIEDIT or WP:PAY and less of WP:GOODFAITH. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 07:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as unremarkable promotionalism. The few sources that aren't obviously primary are churned press releases or websites saying that astrologers can help with "important life decisions", making them ipso facto unreliable sources. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi XOR'easter, you stated that article is unremarkable promotionalism. Can you please explain where it has promotional tone. And did you go through from all the sources. I would suggest you please check these again as all the sources are on trusted websites and independent reilable. If you are not agree with any source please explain why that reference is not fit for the article.NeotanPix (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Pseudoscientists and charlatans can be notable and deserving of articles (eg Uri Geller or Joan Quigley). The issue is whether this subject is notable and meets GNG/BASIC, not the nature of his claimed achievements (which can never be verified) or the current status of the article. It is important not to conflate content with subject.  That said, there seems to be very little in the way of independent reliable sources to verify notability.  The only secondary source RS piece of information I can find is that he is the "resident astrologer" at the Hindustan Times, which is not a notable position. The claimed higher degree qualification looks to be from an institution with, at best, a very questionable reputation.  This person's work appears in a number of newspapers in India, but all the mentions of him are at best trivial.  There just does not seem to be enough that crosses the threshold of independent, reliable sourcing to justify an article.--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG and is almost certainly promotional, which regardless of tone was likely trying to boost the subject's online presence. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you so fucking desperate to keep this article that you completely altered my vote from delete to keep? Altering another editor's vote is a serious breach of conduct. GPL93 (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG, Added new references to justify the notability and removed promotional content. --NeotanPix (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Analysis of new sources:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! !Comment !Reliable !Significant
 * https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/astro/astrologers-live/astrojyotish.cms
 * List of astrologers in a newspaper
 * https://www.bharattimes.com/fortnight-forecast-astrology/
 * Column by subject
 * https://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110119/ttlife1.htm
 * Trivial quote from 2011
 * AMERICAN PSYCHIC & MEDIUM MAGAZINE. (Economy Edition) January 2015
 * Name mentioned in an advertisement
 * Politicians flock to astrologers as planets get into rare ‘clash’ (Hindustan Times)
 * Quoted in story, two paragraps
 * 2015-2016 World' s Best, Most Trusted And Most Popular Lightworkers
 * Directory listing
 * Know what the stars foretell for you (India Today)
 * Trivial single sentence mention
 * Narendra Modi an unstoppable force, say astrologers (DNA)
 * Trivial single sentence mention
 * }
 * I would also argue that any source which uncritically refers to the subject as a "Dr" should be treated as unreliable in this case (although I have not applied that rule to the table above). --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Politicians flock to astrologers as planets get into rare ‘clash’ (Hindustan Times)
 * Quoted in story, two paragraps
 * 2015-2016 World' s Best, Most Trusted And Most Popular Lightworkers
 * Directory listing
 * Know what the stars foretell for you (India Today)
 * Trivial single sentence mention
 * Narendra Modi an unstoppable force, say astrologers (DNA)
 * Trivial single sentence mention
 * }
 * I would also argue that any source which uncritically refers to the subject as a "Dr" should be treated as unreliable in this case (although I have not applied that rule to the table above). --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Know what the stars foretell for you (India Today)
 * Trivial single sentence mention
 * Narendra Modi an unstoppable force, say astrologers (DNA)
 * Trivial single sentence mention
 * }
 * I would also argue that any source which uncritically refers to the subject as a "Dr" should be treated as unreliable in this case (although I have not applied that rule to the table above). --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Narendra Modi an unstoppable force, say astrologers (DNA)
 * Trivial single sentence mention
 * }
 * I would also argue that any source which uncritically refers to the subject as a "Dr" should be treated as unreliable in this case (although I have not applied that rule to the table above). --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * }
 * I would also argue that any source which uncritically refers to the subject as a "Dr" should be treated as unreliable in this case (although I have not applied that rule to the table above). --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * }
 * I would also argue that any source which uncritically refers to the subject as a "Dr" should be treated as unreliable in this case (although I have not applied that rule to the table above). --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

                  
 * Comment New references, i just found few new resources these must be reliable and significant and for other note Prem Kumar Sharma is an old and existing in Indian astrology. He forecast many notable personalities at national and international level.

News Channels       

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NeotanPix (talk • contribs) 05:38, 26 March 2020 (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.