Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar (Marvel Comics)


 * 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, or at least there was no consensus to delete this article. Editors disagreed if WP:NOTABILITY had been established sufficiently, and how major/minor the character was. As a middle ground, I recommend to consider merging this article into a list of characters as an editorial measure. – sgeureka t•c 10:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Umar (Marvel Comics)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - all first party sourcing and writing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:INU. Sergecross73   msg me  19:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable comic character, per nom.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

*I am more lenient with keeping this one. A major Doctor Strange enemy IMO. I would help save it if I had time. A full delete doesn’t sound necessary. There is List of Marvel Comics characters: U for brief mention of the character. But that’s just me. Jhenderson 7 7 7  20:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per...what though? You’re not citing anything, policy, guideline, sourcing, or...anything. You didn’t give a reason. Sergecross73   msg me  22:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * My reasoning (even though I shouldn’t have to explain it) is that I feel there should be coverage on the character as she is a recurring enemy of Doctor Strange. I already explained I would look for some if I wasn’t busy, Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You provided zero evidence. Until you do, this is nothing but a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES violation. Sergecross73   msg me  02:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you are being oblivious but I just linked sources on the bottom and had a lot of google news results of the character. I said I was busy at the time to not do it. That’s all! Jhenderson  7 7 7  02:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Which one of those are supposed to be significant coverage? I spotchecked a few of your bombardment of sources below, and just saw extremely brief passing mentions and listical entries. What I saw is not a convincing argument for meeting the GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  03:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I already knew you would say that. I knew where your mind was and I knew I would't change it. But those sources did say stuff for a reception section at least that I can put down. As I said before GNG can be subjective because that fits my criteria for notability. It wouldn't even be a surprise if she is a character in the next Doctor Strange film potentially but I am not using that for a basis. If you keep commenting on my supposed vote that seem to be keep whining about with guidelines or in a nutshell essays. Then let me point out your double standard that you are not complaining about all the WP:PERNOM, WP:ASSERTN, WP:Not notable or WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP etc.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  04:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you not spend much time at AFD or something? It’s not particularly controversial to assert that short listicle entries aren’t meeting the GNG, nor is it a “double standard” if I don’t question every person on their stance. I just found your stance particularly weak, and it’s telling that you’re spending more time complaining about me than you are providing better sources or formulating a better argument for meeting the GNG than “well it passes because my standards are super low”. Sergecross73   msg me  12:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You were the first one to complain about a vote. Also no I don’t spend much time of AFDs like I used to. I most likely like to edit and improve articles. Which is a better thing to do than spend time on a voting system on butchering articles. Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jhenderson777 or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: U. BOZ (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Considering Doctor Strange only namedrops the character one time in a parenthetical, I don't think Umar can be considered one of his major enemies. When templates are discounted, there are 21 incoming links from article bodies. Of those 21, at least 10 are lists. Spot checking the remaining 11 reveals passing mentions only. This doesn't meet my criteria for being notable within the fiction, but I don't oppose a redirect to something that already exists, like List of comic book supervillain debuts, which contains all the real world information about the character. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * merge short summary to List of Marvel Comics characters: U. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for saying merge not delete. I still want keep but she is significant enough Marvel character to mention outside of a namedrop. Plus if she appears in the Doctor Strange sequel then we should use someplace to link her. Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: Let this page stay. is right on his statements here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please express a valid reason. Neither you nor Jhenderson have yet. Cite a policy and explain how it’s met please. Sergecross73   msg me  00:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Just let people vote for crying out loud. There is two violations of deleters anyway. I am not replying to them in this page am I? I figur it’s fair. Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Minor character meriting a (minor) article. Definitely needs to be trimmed way the heck down, but WP:DINC. Ford MF (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not even remotely policy based. The concern isn’t “cleanup”, the problem is failing the WP:GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  00:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you seem how many AFD's this editor has been doing? Could of fooled me if he ain’t trying to cleanup an entire topic. GNG is getting really subjective now. Me and another editor thinks it notable ready it seems. But I know you will beg to differ. Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t care how many AFDs they’ve been part of - here, they did not cite or explain how any sort of policy or guideline was met. I mean, read what he said. It’s plain as day he cited nothing. Your defenses are baffling. Sergecross73   msg me  01:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I am going to back away from responding to you because you the most uncomfortable admin I ever talked to. Almost to the point of being uncivilized. Have a good day and cool down if you are as heated up as it sounds. Because even though I am stressed a little now. I personally still have a level head and i am not trying to be mean. Just clarifying since you told me to "calm down" one time. Jhenderson 7 7 7  02:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you keep interpreting my comments like this. I’m not upset or angry in the least. I’m just making very simple, basic comments here. I don’t get upset when I need to inform people of failing to follow through on the very basics of AFD. Sergecross73   msg me  02:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I did research and added imperfect ongoing info on it. I am keeping my vote from keep to speedy keep. I don’t think the articles needs to deleted at all. That's mainly means I want it merged if it can’t be kept. No need to pull the plug of the article. Also I concur with WP:DINC. Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on the Notability talk page, you have added trivial, topical, dime-a-dozen articles that have no particular weight. Random people speculating on future Marvel movies, Top 10 lists, and simple one sentence mentions do not establish notability. These are mass produced drivel, and none of them even mention the character in great capacity in the first place. TTN (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Significant coverage is significant coverage. Stop using fallacy excuses for it to be deleted. Just by what the sources are. Stop edit conflicting my opinion anyway. You can just ignore my vote. Also some of those had subsection of the character. They aren’t just trivial mentions. So don’t deceive some editors by what you think the sources are. Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not all sources are equal. Websites that pump out dozens of non-news articles on pop culture items every day without stopping have less quality than those that actually care about editorial standards. It doesn't mean there is absolutely no place for them ever, but it does mean that they have less weight. Any article that puts in more than a sentence is simply recounting in-universe details on the character. This is less to change your mind and more to make others aware that these are trivial sources. The issue here is that you have it in your mind that a subjectively major character in-universe must translate to notable on Wikipedia, so you're taking anything you can find to make that a reality. TTN (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree to disagree. Move on and let other editors have different opinions for a change. Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not only have you not given a valid “speedy” keep reason, you’ve now given two bolded stances, which isn’t allowed. Please calm down, the closing admin is going to see right through all this. You’re not even trying to reconcile your stance with policy. Sergecross73   msg me  00:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

What??? You are accusing me of doing that on purpose. I am not trying to fool an administrator!!! You’re the one that needs to calm down because you just violated Wp:Agf. All I have to do is cross the old message but I figured I didn’t need to. I said I changed my vote. Jhenderson 7 7 7  01:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * All I did is objectively and simply point out that you left two bolded stances concurrently active at the time. That’s not an AGF violation. Sergecross73   msg me  01:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounded to me like you implied I am being deceiving to an administrator. Which is not assuming good faith IMO. If not what you meant I apologize. Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep Notability has now been established with citations of twelve secondary sources, and detailed information from those sources on that character's status as iconic, fan favorite villain. Nightscream (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you identify the specific sources that show that the subject meets the WP:GNG? There’s been some WP:BOMBARD issues so far, where the sources given don’t really illustrate significant coverage. Sergecross73   msg me  02:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * LOL me thinks the editor protests too much about everything I post here. Yes he did use some of my pointed out sources so I guess we both bombarded the article with these sources that just don’t illustrate notability enough good enough for some. Jhenderson  7 7 7  02:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Misdirection aside, it’s usually not a good sign when there’s not a single person who can identify multiple specific GNG-satisfying sources after multiple requests to do so... Sergecross73   msg me  02:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I wonder why that can be? Is it maybe you don’t want to be convinced it is notable? Could we change your mind that she is a notable fictional character and/or shouldn’t be deleted? Find out on the next episode of Dragon Ball Z! Jhenderson  7 7 7  03:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To recap: I ask you for policy-based rational, you respond with baseless complaining and nonsense? What are you doing over there? Has this historically worked for you at AFD? Sergecross73   msg me  03:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not complaining. In fact I am obviously being just silly now with pop culture references because you are being way too serious with everything I type. Let's put a smile on that face! Jhenderson  7 7 7  03:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, but I didn’t need an explanation to know that you’re wasting everyone’s time with irrelevant babbling. Can you provide a specific policy based explanation for your stance or not?  Sergecross73   msg me  03:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The last edit was Nightscream's. So I guess I don’t don’t know. Apparently to you I must be a dense Senior Editor who shouldn’t have an opinion on reliable significant sources and their proof of general notability guidelines and vote keep because I think they are notable. I guess it’s because I don’t edit video game articles like you enough and edit comic book related articles instead and (heaven forbid) I am a fan. At least Nightscream is an admin like you I guess. I want to hear your opinions together. So let’s try this again. Rabbit season! Jhenderson  7 7 7  04:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ( Nightscream is not an admin for the record. Not that it’s relevant to his !vote, but I thought I’d notify you, since it appears to mean something to you for some reason. Sergecross73   msg me  04:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC) )

He was at one time I believe. Not that it matters or do I care though. You are wrong again in your assumptions. I am going to stop falling for your bait now. Jhenderson 7 7 7  04:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you state something (“Nightscream is an admin”), I note that your statement was objectively incorrect, (he is not) and you somehow attempt to make me out to be the bad guy for it?I have no idea what “assumptions” you’re accusing me of having. I was again only stating basic facts. Sergecross73   msg me  04:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again stop taking every single comment I am making seriouly like you are. Good night man! We are getting off topic now. Jhenderson  7 7 7  06:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow... Can i vote TNT on the AfD, and not the article? This is overwhelming =P -2pou (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I can't stand that this AFD was started. I have never seen people antagonized for trying to save an article so much too.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  06:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I was pinged with the request to review the article since my vote few day ago. The 'Critical reception' is the only section that is relevant for the purpose of establishing notability. I reviewed (few sentences),  (mention in passing in a single sentence shared with other characters),  and others and I am sorry, I am still not impressed. Nothing here is close to in-depth coverage, it's all a variation of fictional character biography and 'it would be cool if she appeared in a movie since she is bad ass'. Sorry, that's not enough to make her encyclopedic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  11:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm regularly complaining that our notability standards for comic characters are way too low, and particularly so for DC and Marvel. Howevever, in this case, it seems to meet notability.
 * Should Clea or Dormammu be deleted likewise? Because I would see all three of these as having a comparable foundation for notability. They are part of the Doctor Strange universe, they are long-established historically, they appear adequately often to be significant in-universe and even (within the somewhat less-than academic world of comics lit-crit) they're commented on in review articles. Are any of the claims made in this article somehow false? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue of notability is an article by article case, so other comparable characters have to prove their own way. The issue with this article in particular is that the quality of the sources gathered is abysmal. It's a bunch of single mention clickbait with no substance. Some examples include:
 * The 10 Worst Enemies Stephen Strange Has Ever Faced - Bottom of the barrel, hyper-focused top ten list from a site that released 22 "Top X" lists yesterday.
 * 15 Superheroes Who Had Supervillain Lovers - That someone even thought to include this in the article is baffling.
 * ROGUES' GALLERY: DOCTOR STRANGE'S TOP TEN VILLAINS - Formulaic, repeated, hyper focused top ten videos.
 * Clea, the underrated Sorcerer Supreme - An article about a related character that only mentions the subject of the article in relation to the plot.
 * MCU speculation with one sentence - "Shuma-Gorath, the Beyonder, Kang the Conqueror, Mephisto, Umar – there are plenty of menaces that occupy other planes of existence than our own just ripe for a massive, on-screen punch-up."
 * MCU Speculation with two name drops of no importance,
 * These have no substance. They're mostly mass produced clickbait. They are being used to source statements that have no actual relevance to the article. They're being given undue weight for the size of the quotes. It's just a smoke and mirror show. There are plenty of comic characters given real attention. This is not such a case. TTN (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ugh I find it disturbing that you are devoted to deleting an article that you got to pick apart the sources one by one. Good gravy! That isn't all the sources anyway. Both either in the article or not in the article.   Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is how discussions work. I think the keep arguments are horribly weak, so of course I’d attempt to tear them apart. Would you like me to go over the other sources? The only reason I didn’t bother is because I’d be repeating myself. Please show me a source you’d consider substantial. TTN (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You have proven nothing in my personal opinion. These are pop culture articles that mention her in either great detail or namedrop. You keep using basis that the articles are stupid. Maybe they are! But they are still sources that the article mentioned. Top x characters can still be good articles to use. There is nothing wrong with them. Namedrops are desperate measures I admit but if they provide info that Nightscream just used than I am not complaining. Potential candidates for MCU are list articles that are used constantly and I still feel they help. Do I like all the sources. No! Stupid articles could of been less in-universe if I had my way. But they are what they are. No need to talk trash about articles. It just sounds like you don't want them to exist so the article can be deleted in your favor.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheap, basic sources from sites of dubious editorial merit are not good sources. They are not reliable. Sources that do not mention the character in detail are not relevant to the character. There is no “good enough” mentality for sources. They are either good or they are bad. TTN (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * They are too reliable. They are examples of sources /coverages that can be used. They are in the inclusion criteria. They represent popular culture despite all the stupid in-universe and crystal balling they sometimes do. Even if they didn't prove enough notability now or if it was a stupid topic. Also deletion should not even be a last resort even if the character is not notable when this many sources are utilized and put in the body of the article.   Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If a site is putting out two dozen lists per day, that means the quality of such articles is lacking. There is no way to maintain integrity when you have fifteen different authors scrambling to gather content for dozens of pop culture clickbait per week. If a site is simply name dropping a character, that article is irrelevant. This isn't opinion vs opinion. It's fact that these articles are mass produced clickbait. It's fact that a single mention of a character can in no way constitute significant coverage. TTN (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the addition of new sources. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 17:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Notability as per the guidelines hasn't been established. I rather doubt that those few Keep proponents claiming that new sources have been added to the article actually reviewed those sources, which either only mention the subject fleetingly (and thus cannot count towards supporting notability), or fail to meet the requirements of WP:V for reliability, fact-checking and accuracy. Over on the WP:N talk page, where I asked Jhenderson777 which in the blizzard of sources are sources giving the "significant coverage" to the subject required by the GNG, and which of those sources meet the requirements of WP:V as "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," he's so far declined to answer save for launching another ad hominem attack such as he's done here.  I invite any Keep proponent to answer those questions. I also hope that the closing admin prioritizes policy over headcount, given that arguments like "Let this page stay" and "Minor character meriting a (minor) article" are nowhere to be found in Wikipedia notability criteria.  No objection, of course, to merging to the List of Marvel characters, as above.   Ravenswing      21:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am back at editing instead of wasting time discussing the same thing. I did no such "ad hominem attack"s as you claim. Jhenderson  7 7 7  21:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you’re unsure of what "ad hominem" attacks are, but seriously? "I think you and others had a deletion agenda to get rid of half of comic book character articles." "Sounds like you are being oblivious ..." "Have editors like you realize this is a stupid thing to get upset about anyway?" "It apparently must be a nuisance to you though." "I understand if English isn't your main language though." "I knew where your mind was and I knew I would't change it." "If you keep commenting on my supposed vote that seem to be keep whining about with guidelines or in a nutshell essays." "Which is a better thing to do than spend time on a voting system on butchering articles." "you the most uncomfortable admin I ever talked to. Almost to the point of being uncivilized. Have a good day and cool down if you are as heated up as it sounds." "Stop using fallacy excuses for it to be deleted." "You are accusing me of doing that on purpose." "Apparently to you I must be a dense Senior Editor who shouldn’t have an opinion on reliable significant sources and their proof of general notability guidelines ..." And so on and so on.  (By the bye, for someone who's put in thirty-two comments to this AfD, you still haven't answered my questions above: which sources, precisely, provide the subject with "significant coverage" as per the GNG, and which sources, precisely, do you claim to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?)   Ravenswing      05:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * These aren’t attacks! Also did you dig up the kind of comments I got that I responded to. No. You are using your own fallacy. An red herring.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  12:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "I think you and others had a deletion agenda to get rid of half of comic book character articles."
 * That was an opinion. Not an attack.

"Sounds like you are being oblivious ..."
 * That was no where an insult. I was addressing the editor that I did find sources. Apparently he didn’t see them yet.

"Have editors like you realize this is a stupid thing to get upset about anyway?"
 * The editor was mocking my stance. Also opinion that he was taking it too seriously.

"It apparently must be a nuisance to you though."
 * That was unserious comment.

"I understand if English isn't your main language though."
 * I meant no offense. That should have been obvious. I just didn’t understand what he was saying.

"I knew where your mind was and I knew I would't change it."
 * Again how is this an attack?

"If you keep commenting on my supposed vote that seem to be keep whining about with guidelines or in a nutshell essays."
 * He was. It was kind of stressing me out and making me feel uneasy.

"Which is a better thing to do than spend time on a voting system on butchering articles."
 * Just a non offensive opinion. Sorry if you feel "attack"ed on it.

"you the most uncomfortable admin I ever talked to. Almost to the point of being uncivilized. Have a good day and cool down if you are as heated up as it sounds."
 * He was making me feel uncomfortable. Where was the lie?

"Stop using fallacy excuses for it to be deleted."
 * I will probably strike this one. I went too far I admit on this one.

"You are accusing me of doing that on purpose."
 * He was. Just a fact. Not an attack. Also that was more a question. Despite the lack of a question mark instead of period.

"Apparently to you I must be a dense Senior Editor who shouldn’t have an opinion on reliable significant sources and their proof of general notability guidelines ..."
 * I was being baited on. So sometimes the best thing is to write unserious comments of what it sounds like is going on. Jhenderson 7 7 7  13:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as improved, and per potential for further improvement. There are two distinct vectors of potential notability for this character, one being her relationship with Doctor Strange, and the other being her relationship with the Hulk, which crosses certain lines not usually touched in the comics. bd2412  T 01:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This one is tricky, and I suspect better sources are out there, but until they're found I can't justify keeping this one. Passing mentions and listicles simply cannot provide the info necessary to pass WP:GNG, even though they may be used to provide info in articles where better sourcing is also present. The discussion about the character potentially appearing in a future movie if WP:CRYSTALBALL, and I will not support moving a non-notable article wholesale into a character list by merging. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It's easy to find coverage in works such as the The Supervillain Book and so the topic is notable and should be kept for development per WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT;WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER;WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This character has a lot of coverage. As far as I'm concerned it easily passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Searching around for sources, didn't find anything not already added to the article. Having that many reliable sources talk about the character I believe proves notability.  Some of them have more than others written about the character, and no really long articles of coverage, but the total coverage is enough to convince me the article should be kept.   D r e a m Focus  16:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge - Reliably sourced article with enough coverage for a Critical Reception section. Instead of going nuclear, maybe someone could flesh the article out or something? Additional sources also wouldn't hurt, though I would like to see less of Comic Book Resources and Cinema Blend in the article.  Dark Knight  2149  11:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a distinction should be made on CBR articles older than 2016 and articles from 2016 and later. The quality of their content dropped drastically after the site was sold. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My primary concern is the sheer amount of citations that rely on CBR. We haven't gone overboard (yet), but we should definitely avoid them when adding more citations.  Dark Knight  2149  20:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge and redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters. Include a short summary with citations to the most reliable sources that exist. If better sourcing emerges later, this could be reconsidered.  Montanabw (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It's easy to find coverage. Passes our notability tests. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has sufficient secondary sources to establish notability. SerTanmay (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2019 (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.