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. ✗plicit 06:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.32 Remington (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)

Horse Eye's Back objected to removal of the notability tag after the last deletion discussion, so I did some research into sources that mention the .32 Remington; see Talk:.32 Remington#Notability. Horse Eye's Back concluded that this article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. -- Beland (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless someone can identify more coverage we just dont have WP:GNG and I don't believe that it meets any SNG either. Happy to reconsider if signficant independent coverage is identified, if you think you have please ping me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even one of the sources used for the article (Stebbins) says it's not a well-known cartridge. Jack O'Connor's book gives it a brief sentence as "part of the 30-30 family" and leaves it at that. Intothatdarkness 19:42, 2 April 2025 (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.