Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 3 November	5 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Sandstein 09:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Steam Early Access games

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

User:Jakevossen5 said this is a bad idea. Unsurprisingly nobody is maintaining this unmaintainable, ever-growing list of 3000+ games (according to the external link) for the past few years. Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Vaypertrail (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The usage of the external link in this nomination statement could easily mislead a reader into misinterpreting the statement as meaning that the article itself is an unmaintainable ever-growing list of 3000+ games, which nobody is maintaining. When, in fact, the number of entries in the article are a fraction of that amount. Also, it's unclear which list the nominator asserts is not being maintained, the one in the article, or the one located at the external link. Huggums537 (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Unanimous references by variants of a single source. Ajf773 (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- unmaintainable, and fails WP:NOTCATALOGUE (with a touch of WP:SPAM and WP:NOTNEWS thrown in there as well). Reyk _YO! 09:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a pity you didn't have a WP:PINCH, or a WP:SPRINKLE of something else to WP:TOSS in there also... Heh heh. Huggums537 (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the name of the Cynical Fleet per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete – Very hard to maintain; fails these two sections of NOT principly, not to mention failing other guidelines or policies. A classic case of listcruft. Even if Wikipedia's guidelines were all made by me—a person who sets a very low bar in principle for lists—would dismiss this. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 05:17, 11 November 2017 (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.

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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GyazMail

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

Fails Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Article seems to be only original research WP:OR. Also contains little if any encyclopedic content. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prodded this article a few months ago for being a "non-notable application" but the article's creator claimed in the edit summary when removing the prod, "GyazMail is the only classical native-GUI alternative to Apple Mail that is still actively supportet and developed". That is not enough to prove that something is notable. A WP:BEFORE search only found the sources ^[1] and ^[2], but those sources are not enough to indicate WP:NOTABILITY as the second source mentioned only trivially mentions GyazMail. The first source is not significant coverage of the subject so the subject is not notable. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 16:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep or Merge. While this one-programmer project has not to-date had the same impact as the late Phil Katz's PKZIP, the clock is still ticking for GyazMail. Also, author Goichi Hirakawa, and his 2003-2017 (14 years) accomplishment compares favorably with that of Steve Dorner's Eudora's 1988-2006 range (18 years). Pi314m (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't see the point why the article about GyazMail should be deleted. We have also an article about Trojitá and Mulberry (email client). Mulberry wasn't actively developed since 2007 and became nowadays completely unusable because of its outdated codebase. Most clients with an article have very likely less users than GyazMail and many of them aren't even actively developed anymore. Besides that, Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopedia, so there is no need to save paper. Actually I perceive these recurring requests for deletion as aggravating and pointless trolling. Liebeskind (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: another reference [1] Liebeskind (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And another two sources: [2], [3] Liebeskind (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The focus should be on the notability of the subject. The arguments used seem very similar to some of the ones listed here Subjective importance. Another essay which provides a good point as well: Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two thirds of the mail clients mentioned on Wikipedia are less notable than GyazMail. Do you really want to delete all of them? Liebeskind (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 01:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A perfectly reasonable nomination when unsourced, but we now have Macworld reviews from 2005, 2008 and 2013 in the article. They aren't huge, but the are neutral and independent and directly related to the product. A product of this longevity that has been noted and reviewed in independent trade publications repeatedly would appear to safely cross the notability threshold.Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is 2-3 reliable sources have been identified, but the rest seem a bit questionable, so it might not pass the notability guideline as the number of references does not matter when these sources do not meet the requirements for establishing notability. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2017 (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.

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. Sandstein 09:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Big Brother 2 (disambiguation)

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

None of the links except the top one are valid for each disambiguation page. The RM at Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 2 (disambiguation)#Requested move 27 September 2017 did not have a consensus to move. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose, or make section on BB dabs: Personally, I think it's important to disambiguate the various seasons of a spin-off show of a gigantic franchise and series in its numerous countries. These articles have just as much right to exist as the Big Brother 2 (disambiguation), etc. pages. However, if they "don't have place" as articles, maybe there should be a section on the BB2, etc. disambiguation pages for the CBB editions. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary level of navigation. Per the recent move discussion at Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 2 (disambiguation), Celebrity Big Brother should be the central WP:CONCEPTDAB page for all versions and seasons. -- Netoholic @ 17:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely editorially. Since Celebrity Big Brother 4 redirects to Celebrity Big Brother, these aren't useful. Also (as per above), the UK is the only country to have had more than one season of Celebrity Big Brother under that name, at least so far. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:21, 10 November 2017 (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.

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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Northern Region BBYO

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

WP:BRANCH -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per Branch, and clear COI for creator. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't include local and regional groupings of national or international groups open to general membership per WP:BRANCH, why would we have an article on a regional groupings of an organization whose membership is limited to the followers of a certain religion? After having more than one article taken to deletion on this general subject, it's getting difficult to AGF of the creator of this advitorial. John from Idegon (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BBYO has an article. Adding articles for regional branches is akin to making separate articles for Boy Scout Troops.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BRANCH. The religious character of the organization is irrelevant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of notability--that this was a promotional piece is quite clear. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Multiple sources have been added that prove notability. This truly is a legitimate organization with both local and international recognition. Mark612 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2017

most of those "sources" are small, local. not the kind of sources that would satisfy WP:BRANCH. branches of notable organizations are not automatically notable, rather, must be notable in their own right. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:46, 8 November 2017 (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.

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 merge to The End (comics). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Four: The End

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

Unreferenced since creation consisting of solely WP:PLOT. WP:BEFORE finds fan-generated content, blogs, pricing, etc. No evidence of passing WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I contributed to the Wikipedia article, FF: The End. The End is a well-done mini-series. However, it is just a hypothetical future tale & had little impact on FF lore or the Marvel Universe. Therefore, I have no objection to its deletion. AaronCBurkeAaronCBurke (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the writer/artist info and a short plot summary to The End (comics). Argento Surfer (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Argento Surfer. No reason why the main series page should be a short stub with links to multiple, questionably notable entries, when all the content at those articles can be consolidated on the main series page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above re: Merge. There's some scant coverage but nit enough for standalone. Artw (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2017 (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.

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 redirect to Hereford#Media. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 05:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio stations in Hereford

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

Listicle that duplicates information already present in the main Hereford article or introduces new unsourced information counter to WP:LISTCOMPANY. Serves no encyclopedic purpose split from the main article. Seems like WP:LISTCRUFT for the purpose of having a list. Ham tech person 00:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The information is at Hereford#Media and there will never be so many stations that this list is too long for the main article. Additionally this title is ambiguous as it could mean either "radio stations broadcast from Hereford" (not all on the current list) or "radio stations receivable in Hereford" (a lot more than currently listed).--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hereford#Media as a plausible search term. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hereford#Media as per Bushranger. –Davey2010^Talk 18:01, 9 November 2017 (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.

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Fantastic Four: Ben Grimm and Logan

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

Unreferenced since creation, almost entirely WP:PLOT. No evidence in searches of passing WP:GNG - all search results are to fan-created content, pricing guides, eBay, etc. No evidence that this had any broader impact outside of the series named. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't able to find sales info or reviews for this mini. Obviously an insignificant and inconsequential footnote in the franchise. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, purely in-universe comic book precis. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2017 (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.

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Fantastic Four: Reed Richards

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

Unreferenced since creation, almost entirely WP:PLOT. No evidence in searches of passing WP:GNG - all search results are to fan-created content, pricing guides, eBay, etc. No evidence that this had any broader impact outside of the series named. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't able to find sales info or reviews for this mini. Obviously an insignificant and inconsequential footnote in the franchise. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, purely in-universe comic book precis. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the arguments made above. Dunarc (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2017 (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.

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Fantastic Four: The Storms

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

Unreferenced since creation, almost entirely WP:PLOT. No evidence in searches of passing WP:GNG - all search results are to fan-created content, pricing guides, eBay, etc. No evidence that this had any broader impact outside of the series named. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't able to find sales info or reviews for this mini. Obviously an insignificant and inconsequential footnote in the franchise. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, purely in-universe comic book precis. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, unsourced. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Same article creator for WP:Articles for deletion/Fantastic Four vs. the X-Men ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted by others there is no evidence of notability and no sources for the content. Dunarc (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2017 (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.

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. Sandstein 09:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Four vs. the X-Men

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

Unreferenced since creation, almost entirely WP:PLOT. No evidence in searches of passing WP:GNG - all search results are to fan-created content, pricing guides, eBay, etc. No evidence that this had any broader impact outside of the series named. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Google News link, above, shows ongoing RS coverage sufficient to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of a The Hollywood Reporter article speculating about a possible movie deal "reportedly in the works", those GNews results are blogs and other fan-generated content. None appear to be true RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 11:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Wire, Uproxx, Comic Book Resources, IGN, Collider (website), and Screen Rant are all non-RS? I find your above statement problematic. I know Google News content can vary slightly from place to place, but I'm seeing things that are entirely inconsistent with your statement. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Jclemens that reliable sources mention the series, but I haven't been able to find coverage beyond trivial mentions in articles speculating about a potential film featuring both teams. It's unlikely than any eventual film will have much in common with this miniseries aside from - maybe - a name. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, purely in-universe comic book precis. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails in the sourcing department, but might be a merge candidate for a limited comic book series list. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: same article creator for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Before_the_Fantastic_Four:_The_Storms ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:09, 11 November 2017 (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.

[1] ttps://www.macworld.com/article/1132663/gyazmail15.html

[2] ttps://www.macworld.com/article/2058525/ditch-maverickss-mail-other-email-apps-you-can-try.html

[1]

[2]