Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Francis Alexander

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Francis Alexander

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

One event. already mentioned in the article Air raid on Bari DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The continuing coverage of Alexander's work that proceeded for months after the bombing have been the subjects of major articles in reliable and verifiable sources, as already documented in the article. In no way, shape or form is he notable for the Air raid on Bari; he wasn't even there at the time. The book The Great Secret: The Classified World War II Disaster that Launched the War on Cancer, by Jennet Conant, which is the basis of the lengthy article about him in Smithsonian, is described as "The gripping story of a chemical weapons catastrophe, the cover-up and how one American Army doctor’s discovery led to the development of the first drug to combat cancer, known today as chemotherapy." That doctor, the subject of the book, is Stewart Francis Alexander. Alansohn (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if so, why does the article talk about him ony in the context of treating thesurvoivors of that raid? I think you need to write a different article than the present one. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, per WP:BLP1E, Alexander merits a separate standalone article because the single event he was associated with, the Air raid on Bari, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented in reliable and verifiable sources, including a book that focuses on his pivotal and enduring role. Alansohn (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appear to be numerous sources online including books, so easily passing WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep--Vinayaraj (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe the person satisfies the notability criterion for academics. History of cancer chemotherapy talks about his theory that mustard gas could be used to suppress cancer cell division, and how that played a role in the further development of chemotherapy. As such, it satisfies The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline. -- Raziman T V (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has coverage in RS. Satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (academics): The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable source Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 26 August 2020 (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.