Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purnima 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Purnima Gupta


Fails WP:GNG, nothing significant found about her, lacks RS. Created by possible paid or COI editor. Meeanaya (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Why this is nominated for deleted. She is one of the great astrologers who got some of the awards like best tarot card reader in 2017, Young women achiever - astrology 2018 (National excellence award by anti terrorism crime and corruption front), Best astrologer 2018 - By magica, Jyotish ratna in 2017, jyotish bhushan 2019 by Nier, Mother terasa sadhbhavana award in 2019 and so on. I believe she is eligible to add an indian astrologer category. Please elaborate in detail why do you want to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavithra12 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pavithra12, if you are not paid where did you got this photograph? Declare your COI or employer to comply with the Wiki policies. Meeanaya (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Meeanaya spoke with her directly through social media and received some details to add more info  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavithra12 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Now added some of the award achieved by her with source link. Could you please check and help me to improve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavithra12 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC) This is not paid edit. Entirely it is based on my research. i really dont understand what makes you to think this way. Could you please explain. (talk)Pavithra12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Independent of the deletion discussion, this article is so poorly written. Not good enough - not by a long shot. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Feels like a plain promotion content and a paid edit. 117.207.24.238 (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Should it be listed in list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions this is a astrologer. FYI in modern times Astronomy is NOT related to Astrology. Someone with the power should re remove it from the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. thank you -- Bayoustarwatch (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * no longer on the list. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Use of Wikipedia as an ADVERT for this professional astrologer.  A number of people in India who get into the news share her name, but while there are some hits in a search on this astrologer, they are brief and read like mere PROMO. afaic see, she fails WP:SIGCOV.  If somebody manages to find adequate sources, feel free to ping me to revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTPROMO as argued just above. Call it star-crossed, but keeping this article just isn't in the cards. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2019 (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.