Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Palumbo

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. sjorford →•← 16:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Palumbo

Nothing here establishes that this architect is notable except that "Lord" in his title. If this article is worth expanding on then it should be done, however I don't see that happening. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is a stub. LoopZilla 10:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But what is in question is the notability of this person. What have they done that makes them Wiki-worthy? -- Riffsyphon1024 10:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the v.f.d. went on 4 minutes after I created the page to look for extant references, of which there were 4 or 5: now there are 10 LoopZilla 07:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable. 80.255 11:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A simple Google search for Lord Palumbo will reveal his notability. Miss Pippa 12:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but move to Peter Palumbo, Baron Palumbo. Apart from being a significant property developer (some would say notorious rather than notable), Lord Palumbo has been a member of the British House of Lords since 1991. --Henrygb 13:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, very notable indeed. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, significant public figure. --Charles Matthews 17:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move. The fact that he is a member of a parliament such as the House of Lords indicates notability as does the awarding of a life peerage in the UK. Former chair of the arts council in the UK as well. Capitalistroadster 18:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nomination was unresearched and should not have been made. Wincoote 02:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very odd nomination. -- Necrothesp 15:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This article has grown since its nomination. If you go back into the history, you will see that it definitely was not this large or detailed. Page on March 5 Do not assume. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I quote you: "If this article is worth expanding on then it should be done, however I don't see that happening". Why, precisely? This second comment suggests you didn't bother to check out his notability before nominating. Therefore, I think people's comments are rather justified and nobody is assuming anything. -- Necrothesp 20:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • You may be correct on me forgeting to check, sometimes I have hunches that certain articles may be crap. However, I was wrong, and was proven wrong. But might I bring up something of interest? Most of you are from the UK, are you not? As an American, I was simply not aware of this person as you may be, so may I escape ridicule for not knowing of his notability? Since this article has grown to an acceptable Wikilength --and-- has proven notability of this person, then I cannot wish for it to be deleted anymore. Dispute over. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:22, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Simply because I found the page very useful when looking for info on the father of the owner of Ministry of Sound. ZephyrAnycon 23:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.