Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copachisa


 * 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Copachisa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Article contains no sources. Best thing to do would be to remove it until someone takes enough of an interest to find and add sources. CorporateM (Talk) 15:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I did find some reliable secondary sources in Spanish such as this and . So perhaps there are more out there. SarahStierch (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess I am not very experienced regarding the norms at AfD. I am surprised that though the deletion rational says nothing about notability, it keeps coming up in discussions as if it is the only possible reason to delete. However, if the article does not contain anything worth keeping, Original Research, Promotion, etc. seems like valid reasons to simply remove the entire thing. I see now the norm seems to be to stub it to a sentence instead, which means I will also need to watchlist it to prevent the promotional original research from returning. CorporateM (Talk) 00:37, 13 November 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) 01:16, 18 November 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) 00:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Granted it is an unreferenced stub, but the article subject has been covered in sources that comply with WP:GNG, e.g.: 1, 2, 3. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:10, 3 December 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.