Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Thomas Ott

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 13:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Thomas Ott[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

My PROD No inherent notability in his role, a redirect to the 32nd wouldn't be due as he's not mentioned/it's not sourced. was declined (courtesy @Necrothesp: so we're here. While I did so before PROD, I've checked again and cannot identify sourcing that would confer notability. Thanks! Star Mississippi 02:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Wisconsin. Star Mississippi 02:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. Notability does not exist. Web check shows nothing that would count as a reliable source. Nothing in books or news either. Editors have had 12 years of the article being tagged for notability issues yet appropriate sources have not been produced. This is a clear case for deletion on notability grounds, verification also. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above. It's been around this long and not much more of anything for a RS has turned up, telling me non-notable. I get a hit for someone in the National Guard (it appears to be him, it's more of a by-line) and phone book listings. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 9 September 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.