Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christoph Wilhelm Dedekind


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Christoph Wilhelm Dedekind

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A7 speedy contested; subsequently, claim of significance placed. Prod removed after that, and an unreliable source added. I've not been able to find any reliable sources to support GNG/SNG. My suggestion is to delete this article. Would look forward to hearing comments from other editors. Lourdes 11:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support deletion; as aforementioned, GNG/SNG is in effect here - adding to this, following the links within the given source reveals a probable copyright violation, as the two texts are remarkably similar. 1Samario1 (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete appears to be a Genealogy article with no claim to notability and no reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. The article in effect says that he was born, lived, and died. I cannot see any notability here. Nothing in German Wiki. Narky Blert (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * With some regret, DElete unless there is major improvement to create a narrative text, not a series of notes, and to provide details of his ministry and achievements, currently largely lacking. I cannot judge the merits of the source, but the article fails to prove notability.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2016 (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.