Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capocelli


 * 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) 01:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Capocelli

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Spam cross-wiki. This page is identical to the version that was deleted from it.wiki one year ago (see it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Capocelli), because it didn't have any references and it was probably an original research based on a paid heraldic research center. BohemianRhapsody (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * --79.27.4.162 (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Hi! I've created the page and now I'm going to tell the right fact: this information didn't come from a private heraldic study, but from a book that I've read in an ITALIAN NATIONAL ARCHIVE, in particulary that of Bari. So this is all correct! I think now that wikipedia is composed by a little strange group of people who enjoying disturb the other people and who doesn't take care of the informations.It's really incredible!


 * Delete per WP:GNG multiple reliable sources. The one cited source exists but it is very close to the topic, published by the Commune where the family is from. The text of the article has been translated by Google Translate and is nearly incomprehensible. The single source is not enough to establish notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2013 (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.