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) 19:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Lightner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article about a fictional character seems like fancruft and does not seem to be notable - a search on Google Scholar only turns up a few articles regarding the author's work in general, not focused on this character. The article is almost entirely an in-universe biography. The article is also in sore shape generally, with no references supporting it and issue tags from 2010. Roniius^{talk to me} 17:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Roniius^{talk to me} 17:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The nom has the right of it. Not ideal to redirect this one, unlike the others, since the top google hit for this name is actually a postdoc at Aarhus with a growing research footprint. -- asilvering (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources, thus failing WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Roniius. There are no reliable independent sources PaulPachad (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2022 (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.