Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/''Aarppoyi''

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) 01:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

''Aarppoyi''

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

It takes more than gumption, more than gall, and more than . . . a word I cannot say . . . to write and then de-prod an article like this: It's about a souvenir pamphlet given out at a boat race. It comes complete with a massive photo of the souvenir pamphlet's editor. Let me say this: WP:42. Let us also say that it fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, and, just quite possibly (although I hate to think so), WP:COI Qworty (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 or A7. Oh my aching head. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable publication, no sources out there at all, Google returns a big 3 hits, two of them WP and one of them seemingly a blog on Malaysian cinema or something. Carrite (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with above. I have no idea who wrote it, i just randomly came across it in Special:UncategorizedPages. I tried my best to decode the (obviously Indian guy's) pseudo-English and fix the formatting/shrink the picture to save his hard work, but yes agreed, the subject is definitely Non-Notable. I'm sure it's probably of cultural signifigance to the town this guy is from, but nobody else has even heard of it probably. This should probably not be on Wikipedia, but again, I am no deletionist and don't have the heart to delete much of anything. I definitely support somebody else doing that, however.--██████ 20:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, where reasonable attempts at identifying reliable, secondary material have failed. Although the article did satisfy G11, the subsequent contributions render that criterion inapplicable. Since the subject of the article is not an individual, organisation, or online publication, the A7 criterion is similarly inapplicable. Mephistophelian (contact) 01:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced. It's about a souvenir pamphlet given out at a boat race. It comes complete with a massive photo. . . . . . !!!! -Rayabhari (talk) 16:15, 29 September 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.