Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prerna Gupta


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Prerna Gupta

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I have a considerable skepticism about people in ordinary occupations who have professional glamorous photographs.This at least is honest: its the credited work of a professional photographer, not a transparent pretense at "self"

But the claimed notable work is developing a non-notable product, and then writing a non notable book. The only way this could have generate news stories is if they were PR stories; nobody would have cared otherwise, and neither should we.I don't trust single one of them for being objective and independent.  DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Does have quite a lot of good citations, but I don’t think it passes WP:NBIO. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 10:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Mild Keep Most sources are about other things that mention her. The CNN Money and Vogue India links seem to be the best. Oaktree b (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Appears to be notable, if weakly. (For what it's worth, I've heard of the app, and it has its own article with decent sourcing.) The sources don't appear to be PR by the standards of the field (in which everything is PR, but we've ruled that some count as 'reliable' for Wikipedia purposes). At least three of them (the two Oaktree mentioned and the Sunday Times piece) strike me as fairly clear GNG passes. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable, albeit needs more reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by TOKYO2021 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep https://money.cnn.com/interactive/technology/15-questions-with-prerna-gupta/index.html finds her notable enough to interview. Two other reliable sources publish long articles she wrote about herself https://www.vogue.com/article/prerna-gupta-songify-got-rid-of-possessions-lived-as-nomad https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/jobs/11pre.html so all these reliable sources consider her a notable person.   D r e a m Focus  20:27, 26 January 2021 (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.