Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brasmine


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Brasmine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is unlikely to be a better notable and acceptable encyclopedia article and, at best, could be drafted and userfied if needed. Notifying author and past tagger. SwisterTwister  talk  05:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete A dictionary definition of a non-English word. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article was previously PRODed (by me) and tagged for speedy deletion as a dicdef, and the tags were removed by the article creator. Edison (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  sst ✈  10:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, I am Italian and I never heard this word before now. No sources in Google Books or Google Scholar, which would be the more proper places for finding examples of the use of this word. Almost anything even in generic searches on Google (and apparently the few results are all false positives and there is anything about this "concept"). It not should be deleted for being a definition (the article goes beyond a dictionary definition), but per MADE UP and because it is very likely a hoax. Or, assuming good faith, it is a non-notable concept which does not just fails notability but even verifiability. --Cavarrone 21:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete article of no encyclopedic importance. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:51, 10 January 2016 (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.