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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Stanley Lieberson (edit | 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)

Article is cited to a staff biography at Harvard and a paid obituary in the Boston Globe (not a staff written one). Neither of these are independent. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy/snow keep. The nomination does not mention the relevant notability guideline of WP:NPROF, which the subject here clearly passes multiple criteria of. Sourcing could be better -- the Harvard source in the article doesn't work for me, but this one does [1], the AAAS membership is verified here [2] -- but as usual, WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Social science, Canada, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep WP:SK3, completely erroneous nomination that fails to even consider the correct notability criteria, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR, noting also that PROF notability is not about independence of sourcing. This stub manages to pack in five separate and unambiguous claims of WP:PROF notability: named professor at Harvard (at a time when that meant much more than it might today), member of NAS, Amacad, and the American Philosophical Society, and president of the American Sociological Association. The Harvard link (visible in archive [3]) gives even more, including another fellowship, two more presidencies, and a very likely pass of WP:AUTHOR even before looking for book reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per criterion 3 (lack of accurate rationale in nomination) and passing both WP:AUTHOR and multiple criteria of WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawing per WP:HEY as well as the cogent remarks above. Article has been majorly improved by Vycl1994 in particular. Clearly meets the SNG criteria provided by others above. Thanks to those who improved the article. Good work.4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep I share the views of above voters. Gedaali (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2025 (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.