- 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. czar 16:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Alfred Loedding
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Alfred Loedding ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Brief mentions, not enough to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 09:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note Due to a syntax error, this AfD did not appear correctly until the following timestamp: Raymie ( t • c) 19:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. For what it's worth, his articles got a decent amount of citations in the 50s. Also there appear to be a number of mentions in fringe UFO books. Don't know if they both amount to a solid notability claim. He's certainly an interesting character. Best, PK650 ( talk) 07:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete not enough reliable sourcing to justify having an article considering how fully a fringe figure he is. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Lacking reliable sources. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 02:39, 17 April 2020 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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. czar 16:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Alfred Loedding
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Alfred Loedding ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Brief mentions, not enough to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 09:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note Due to a syntax error, this AfD did not appear correctly until the following timestamp: Raymie ( t • c) 19:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. For what it's worth, his articles got a decent amount of citations in the 50s. Also there appear to be a number of mentions in fringe UFO books. Don't know if they both amount to a solid notability claim. He's certainly an interesting character. Best, PK650 ( talk) 07:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete not enough reliable sourcing to justify having an article considering how fully a fringe figure he is. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Lacking reliable sources. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 02:39, 17 April 2020 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.