Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagla Hills mine

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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bagla Hills mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No such mine exists AFAIK. See Bagla Hills for the sordid details. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. The present content is unsuitable and Bagla Hills covers the matter rather well. Possibly there should be a redirect if it is a useful search term but I expect anyone interested in the "mine" would find it just as easily without. Thincat (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen that the nominator here went on to improve the main article so I'll record my thanks for that. Thincat (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The main article is sufficient. I guess this can be deleted and I don't see the need to leave a redirect hanging behind. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2016 (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.