Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Astrology Prince (2nd nomination)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Astrology Prince

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources for this BLP. Last AfD had low participation so I am renoming. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When I put this in AfD last year, there was only one Keep vote by an IP editor, and he didn't bring any policy based point on the table. So, it was rather puzzling to see it closed as no-consensus. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a page that exists to advertise the existence of some psychic hotline and nothing more. Sædon ^talk 23:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only thing resembling a reliable source I found was an article in the "Life" section of the China Daily. Unfortunately, it looks like the writer worked from her desk and drew her information entirely from the subject's website or books, so it doesn't count as real reporting, all the more so as it was published in what is essentially a "human interest" section of the paper rather than the news section, and thus probably did not undergo rigorous fact checking by the writer or editor. Aside from that, I found absolutely nothing in reliable sources, so it appears that the subject is not notable enough to meet the requirements of any of our guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2012 (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.