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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 05:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pfaudler[edit]

Pfaudler (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)

Fails WP:NBIO WP:NCORP. Sources both in the article and from what I could find are routine business operations that would not confer notability. Longhornsg (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note the text in WP: BIO.
On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary.
The article being objected to is not a biography so the objection is irrelevant. PMChefalo (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't completely thinking when I mistakenly typed NBIO instead of NCORP. Non-notability still stands. Longhornsg (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2024 (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.