Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Palombo


 * 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. ST47 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Stanley Palombo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This bio relies on two book reviews and I can’t find any other significant reliable coverage so I don’t think it passes WP:ANYBIO. Mccapra (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional places where his work is cited include, , , , , , among many others. He is a widely cited author within his field of study.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Lean to Keep however try a re-list to see if the Deletes can challenge the RS quoted
 * Keep per criteria number 3 of WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. His works have received reviews in multiple journal articles, and have been discussed in articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and academic peer reviewed articles. See the following:
 * 1) {Palombo is a contributing author and his ideas are reviewed)
 * 1) {Palombo is a contributing author and his ideas are reviewed)
 * 1) {Palombo is a contributing author and his ideas are reviewed)
 * 1) {Palombo is a contributing author and his ideas are reviewed)
 * 1) {Palombo is a contributing author and his ideas are reviewed)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep 4meter4 gives us an example of a WP:BEFORE search which shows the subject passes WP:AUTHOR The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The before search was needed to see if reliable sources exist per WP:NEXIST, because they were not in the article does not reduce the notability. Wm335td (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I’m afraid I can’t access the eight main sources provided by 4meter4 but the google book refs they’ve also provided certainly support the view that the subject is widely cited. I’m not readily able to evaluate the quality of those refs but overall it seems pretty certain that the subject is notable. Many thanks. Mccapra (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.