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. ✗plicit 06:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haritha Gogineni[edit]

Haritha Gogineni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neither recognized as the most trusted astrologer (it's the real Indian award), nor as a businessperson BoraVoro (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Astrology, and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Unsure of the quality of the sources found [1] is basically a paragraph with lots of photos, typical of other sources. This is listed [2] in Gsearch, but the website only returns html code, looks like a coding error. How do we feel about the other sources out there, they are flowery, but do mention her role as producer in several items? Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on what I've seen, I don't think this person is covered in RS that we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, quick search shows some sources that would be better suited for the subject matter based in india. This one, this, and this. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  These are all either paid promotion, or indistinguishable enough from it that they might as well be; see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my response immediately above. PR-type sources can't be used to establish notability. "Most trusted astrologer" award? Really? Other than a couple claims of receipt of this award over the last couple years, I can't even verify that this is a real thing. Who awards it? What are the selection criteria? If an astrologer casts a horoscope in the forest, but there's no one around to read it, is it still bunk? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lots of hits, all with ridiculous titles that cast massive doubt on reliability. No evidence of any other attention given by any third party. Fermiboson (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - None of the sources seem reliable enough to establish notability. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – If Wikipedia started listing every such fantasist, there'd be no end to it. MisterWizzy (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.