Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sohini Sastri

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. RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sohini Sastri

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is an article about an astrologer. Astrology is a fringe activity, and we usually need really high-quality sources to establish notability. I am not seeing it here, with for example one source saying that she is one of the most renowned Indian astrologers, known for high precision of her forecasts - we are not supposed to take this seriously, no? In addition the article is highly promotional. Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak keepI see at least three national newspapers discussing this person. Fringe has nothing to do with notability, just how we present it, this person seems moderately notable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by the articles in national newspapers - these look like reprints of a press release (note the disclaimers at the bottom of the articles) - churnalism rather than significant coverage. The article is also very promotional, and would need to be rewritten with better sources if it is to be retained - I'd be inclined to delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i provide all the possible independent reliable resources. Sohini Sastri is a notable personality by her work in India. I don't think these resources are paid. These are independent & reliable resources which are published by news agency. Business Standard, ANI News, Times of India, News Track, Business Standard, Amar Ujala. The above resources are trusted news papers. Samual1213 (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Business Standard refs carries the following disclaimer: (This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.). The ANI News one has This story is provided by NewsVoir. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article. This, as well as the nature of the content, is what leads me to believe that these are just press releases/churnalism. The Times of India ref is not coverage of the subject, it's a horoscope written by her. The Amar Ujala and News Track refs give the subject passing mentions - two short sentences in one case, and a single mention in list of names in the other. None of this amounts to significant coverage. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a snow job. The sources are all being auto-generated from press releases. I would notmally agree with those saying that someone who has received notice in the media is notable, but in these cases it looks like there has been some gaming going on. A good WP:Independent source which documented her biography would help change my mind. jps (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Churnalism isn't coverage. XOR'easter (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete getting an honorary doctorate does not make one notable. Even getting a real doctorate does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a honorary doctorate in a for-profit university which experiences serious financial difficulties.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable, lacks reliable sources Heptor (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is written in promoting way. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Adding to the snow. ∯WBG^converse 06:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a Minnesota winter out here with all that snow, so let’s add a lil’ more. Anyways, per most of the Delete votes - not notable and not enough significant coverage. Silence | ^Speak./_Find. 21:07, 5 November 2019 (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.