Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totapuri mango


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Totapuri mango

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is just a mango cultivar. Not sure if it deserves separate article. By the way, the user was blocked indefinitely shortly after he created this article. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  00:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment We have over 70 mango cultivars with their own article, so I think some research is needed to see if this one is notable enough for an article. It would also be helpful if all of the other mango cultivar articles had titles that were consistent. You can see them all at Category:Mango cultivars. Also, List of mango cultivars might have some more that are articles but not in the category yet. Obviously there are some mango fans on Wikipedia to have such good coverage! First Light (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Aside from consisting of 100% original research, this stub has so many issues of style and tone that it would be far easier to rewrite it from scratch rather than modify what's there now, should the topic prove notable. Rivertorch (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC) In light of First Light's revisions, keep. Rivertorch (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I went ahead and stubbed the article and referenced it. It appears to be one of the more widely grown varieties for export as pulp, so having an article seems worthwhile, even a short stub. If kept, it should be moved to Totapuri (mango). First Light (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. First Light's version appears to demonstrate notability, and the article is a good base for potential further expansion.  Tazerdadog (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as it has good coverage in books as well. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 05:58, 9 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.