Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curt DiCamillo

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curt DiCamillo

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

Blatant promotion, does not seem notable for Wikipedia, cannot find sources from reliable outlets (besides his own personal pages/websites). Would like to hear opinions from other editors about the relevance of this subject for Wikipedia. Article possibly written by the subject himself. Sheroddy (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although Books and Scholar found a few results, there's nothing to suggest likely improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - he's listed in Who's Who, but that's
the best source so far. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some mentions, but not enough to meet
WP:BASIC. Esquivalience ^t 00:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Article has been at AfD for almost a month and sources are still just webpages. Agricola44 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 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.