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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Andrew Murray Hunt

Andrew Murray Hunt (  | 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:BASIC does not fulfill any of the criteria like multiple published significant sources. Sea Cow ( talk) 04:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sea Cow ( talk) 04:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 04:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 04:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 04:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There is a NYT obit, already in the article. With such a common name, and the likelihood that the subject usually went by "A. M. Hunt" and did his main work prior to 1915, and then did presumably secret work advising the US Navy during WWI, it is hard to find details online quickly. Unfortunately I can't access NYT, but, according to the Naval Advisory Board article, Hunt is included in the New York Times article of September 13, 1915, which states that the Naval Advisory Board is "... the organization of experts, who will contribute their inventive genius to the navy..." which seems to me, together with the NYT obit, to be strongly suggestive of notability. There are patents coming up in a Google Scholar search [1], as well as a mention in Proceedings of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers [2] about the Naval Advisory Board appointment. Another possible hit in The Journal of Military History [3] [4], which again I unfortunately can't access to verify. Also multiple Google Books hits, including a Who Was Who entry [5] (snippet view only but looks to be a detailed entry); an index to Who Was Who In America With World Notables: 1607-2007 [6]; discussion in Engineering Magazine [7] (snippet view, but looks to be significant); [8] (snippet view again, but also looks significant); as well as [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], plus many more I don't have time to check through now. Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Many thanks to Extraordinary Writ for explaining how to access NYT; from the obit, Hunt was also president of the American Society of Civil Engineers in 1921 and 1922. I'll add some details to the article. Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I've reviewed the New York Times obituary mentioned above (in ProQuest, free through WP:TWL), and it is indeed significant coverage: four paragraphs, including a statement that he was a "nationally eminent electrical and mechanical engineer". A Newspapers.com search yields additional coverage – [17] ( Oakland Tribune), [18] ( Sioux City Journal), and [19] ( Associated Press, nationally reprinted) – and Espresso Addict has identified several other promising sources. Particularly since additional offline/difficult-to-find sources likely exist as well, Murray seems to pass WP:BASIC easily. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. A full obituary in a major national newspaper has always been considered sufficient to prove notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment no there is no policy or guideline that says "A full obituary in a major national newspaper has always been considered sufficient to prove notability". I read the NYT obituary and it is clearly a family provided obituary, like many others of similar length on the same page with various bold claims including his description as a "nationally eminent electrical and mechanical engineer". Mztourist ( talk) 04:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • There is, however, longstanding consensus at AfD, as has been pointed out before. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Another "consensus" that you claim exists... Mztourist ( talk) 07:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Another one that you claim doesn't... -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The article put out by the Associated Press about his death is titled "Noted Engineer Dies in California." I think that would speak to his notability by itself. [20] Jamesallain85 ( talk) 21:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Between the Times obit and the Oakland Tribune article, supplemented by the Sioux City Journal piece, the article passes the threshold. As a point of information, the Times doesn't run "family provided obituar[ies]". The article's byline is "Special to The New York Times", meaning that it was reported by a Times stringer (as opposed to a staff reporter or correspondent or by a wire service). Fiachra10003 ( talk) 03:53, 26 January 2022 (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.