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 speedy delete. Promotional, unsourced, already exists as draft Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nanggelan beach[edit]

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

Reads like an essay with unreliable sources JMHamo (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from mainspace as inadequately sourced and unwikified. Article also exists at Draft:Nanggelan beach, where reviewers can make suggestions for its improvement. (In other words, draft is already userfied.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional and uninformative. Nick Number (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already declined at Articles for Creation, but re-posted to main space anyway. No clear assertion of notability, plus promotional and unencyclopedic tone. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:36, 13 November 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.