Charles Francis Lott: Much of the article is cited to a  Burlington County Medical Society publication of which the subject was a member.  The source lacks independence from the subject.  The other sources are two publications on the History of Butte County in which his son was a prominent judge.  The coverage in both is really more related to giving a biographical background of his son and he is not the main subject.  In my opinion, none of these sources indicate that subject was independently notable from his son, and none rise to the level of in-depth independent significant coverage that we require to pass WP:SIGCOV .  Further, his career as a physician doesn't appear to have been remarkable in any way.  4meter4 ( talk ) 18:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Re: none of these sources indicate that subject was independently notable from his father , the subject's father is not even mentioned in the article.  BD2412 T 18:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two of the three sources are principally about his son, Charles Fayette Lott .  I was commenting on the sources BD2412 not on the prose in the article.  I meant to write son not father earlier, and have corrected the text accordingly.  4meter4 ( talk ) 18:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well I have now added an easily found additional source that is principally about the subject and independent of them, and contains all of the information documented in the source you assert lacks independence, so you can withdraw this WP:BEFORE -lacking nomination.  Cheers!  BD2412 T 19:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would consider this one source with independent significant coverage.  We need multiple sources with independent significant coverage to pass GNG.  I am not persuaded.  4meter4 ( talk ) 19:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The 1918 source, while primarily on the son, has objectively extensive enough coverage of the father.  BD2412 T 19:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There certainly is content in the sources on his son, but I wouldn't consider it significant coverage.  By all accounts so far he seems to have been a rather ordinary physician with a rather ordinary life.  There are many medical professionals, and many who have served in the military.  What makes this particular person encyclopedic?  What is his claim to notability?  At this point the only thing I am seeing is the family connection with his son and the other Lott family members.  Perhaps a larger article on the family, which seems to have been the topic of more sources, would be more appropriate rather than an individual article on this particular member of the Lott family?  4meter4 ( talk ) I would consider raising a cavalry company and directing a military medical facility during a fairly major early American war to suffice on its own.  BD2412 T 21:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see you have been busy adding sources and more content; particularly on his work in the military.  Good work.  I will take a look at it tomorrow, and get back to you.  I am off wiki for the rest of today.  Best.  4meter4 ( talk ) 22:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , in any case.  Nominating an article 29 minutes after its creation, and with an obvious absence of WP:BEFORE , is no way to build an encyclopedia.  BD2412 T 19:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Before I nominated the article, I did searches in google books, JSTOR, EBSCOE, and my university library search engine.  It took me roughly 15 minutes to do  a standard WP:BEFORE search as outlined in the guideline.  It's not hard when you have access to a university library.  Best.  4meter4 ( talk ) 20:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All of the sources that I found were found on Google Books, but it is difficult to effectively search for an individual who is likely to often be identified as just "Charles Lott", or even "Charles F. Lott".  BD2412 T 20:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Certainly, different naming conventions can make searching more challenging.  Having more people look for materials, which this AFD will accomplish, will ultimately benefit the article if it is kept.  Best.  4meter4 ( talk ) 21:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Medicine ,  and New Jersey .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regardless of the merits of the article, it is clearly not appropriate to nominate it for deletion 40 minutes after it was created, while it was still being written, in what appears to be a continuation of an editing dispute over the Charles Lott disambiguation page.  In fact given the existence of the prior dispute I suspect the nominator learned of the article's existence when it was added to the disambiguation page , a mere seven minutes before it was nominated for deletion .  (Either that or the nominator was stalking the creator's edits.)  I suggest this AfD be closed.  Hut 8.5 10:52, 16 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: speedy keep