Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Thai boon roong twin tower world trade center

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  speedy keep. Nominator withdrew during this interesting discussion, which led to uncovering of sources and changes in the draft all of which neutralized any hoax concerns, causing the issue to become non-controversial and the continuation of this discussion, therefore, unnecessary. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 15:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Thai boon roong twin tower world trade center

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Created by a now blocked, vandalism only account. Neither this draft, nor the title is of help to anyone else, and with no sourcing beyond forums and other non reliable sites, there's zero chance for notability within the G13 window. Star   Mississippi  00:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - It wasn't necessary to nominate this for deletion, because it will self-destruct in six months. However, since we are here, it may be a non-obvious hoax.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This source looks ok: Perhaps redirect to List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Southeast_Asia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: At first I thought this was a thinly-veiled 9/11 "joke", but it's an actual thing which has received some non-trivial coverage, meaning a productive draft could be built out of this. Preference is to keep, but as the draft is extremely short and the creator is blocked, I won't weep if this is deleted. If kept, move to either Draft:Phnom Penh Twin World Trade Center or the capitalized version of the current title; both names seem to be used. Curbon7 (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wouldn't call the draft itself vandalism, so "vandalism-only account" isn't the perfect description. Furthermore, I disagree with the assertion that this would have "no sourcing beyond forums and non-reliable sites" - one, WP:ITSACASTLE. Two, I was able to find this from New Internationalist and this from The Phnom Penh Post quite easily. That's not exactly the kind of sourcing that'd pass AfD scrutiny, but there's probably other sources in Khmer, and it's at least enough sourcing to dispute the idea that this draft truly has zero chance of notability. Let G13 get to it. casualdejekyll  03:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, just to be clear that's what the block log/reason states which is why I described it as such. BUt thanks for finding those sources. Together with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång's, I guess it could be improved. Thanks for the process info @Robert McClenon. I wasn't sure how best to handle an unlikely to be useful draft by a blocked editor since it didn't fit speedy. Will not nom in the future.  Star   Mississippi  12:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, would you reconsider your there's zero chance for notability within the G13 window statement after looking at the draft now? :)—Alalch E. 11:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to mainspace or keep as draft. Notable construction project under WP:NBUILDING.—Alalch E. 09:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Struck. While I'm not sure I agree it would survive in mainspace-which we don't need to sort here anyway-, it's now at least a viable draft. Thank you. I'm going to be on and offline this weekend so if ends up reassessing their !vote, just noting I'm fine with this closing as keep/nom withdrawn.  Star   Mississippi  13:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a castle applies. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.