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. I'm not persuaded by the argument that any single source is sufficient to meet the GNG, particularly a short death notice. ♠PMC(talk) 01:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry A. V. Post (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only coverage I could find was the brief New York Times obit cited in the article, which isn't enough to establish GNG. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edwardx and Mztourist: That's not the case and goes directly against consensus. See the relevant discussion, specifically many years ago [...] the NYT published short death notices; the consensus here suggests these shorter pieces are not an assertion of notability. I don't see how this can be considered anything other than a short death notice. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:05, 31 January 2021 (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.
No tags for this post.