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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Ecce Romani

Ecce Romani (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

The article survived the first afd on the basis of "every text book is notable". But existence isn't equal to notability, which requires significiant coverage in secondary sources. None of the citeria in WP:NBOOK is met, either. Antigng ( talk) 13:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per WP:NB. Also, there are even no refs. Whaterss ( talk) 00:42, 21 March 2015 (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.