Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corpulent Stump
: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 soft delete__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_preload&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:Corpulent Stump}}&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corpulent Stump}}&editintro=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_intro&preloadtitle={{urlencode:Corpulent Stump}}§ion=new&title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_undeletion&create=Request request the article's undeletion]. ✗plicit 23:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
=[[:Corpulent Stump]]=
:{{la|1=Corpulent Stump}} – (
:({{Find sources AFD|title=Corpulent Stump}})
Despite the 2007 news item I feel it’s not notable. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
{{clear}}
: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.