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. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Converse Backus[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG most of the sources are obituaries 3 of other people and 1 of him. There is no indepth coverage whatsoever. Nothing in the article suggests that he achieved anything that is notable enough to warrant an article. The main claim to significance is having had a letter published in the NY times. This I think is not enough. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails GNG. Husounde (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2018 (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.