Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamai Leibowitz

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. Consensus is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shamai Leibowitz

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

WP:BLP1E Shrike (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While this does seem to be a single event, his story received a lot of coverage, and made it to books too: Charlie Savage (3 November 2015). Power Wars: The Relentless Rise of Presidential Authority and Secrecy. Little, Brown. pp. 344–. ISBN 978-0-316-28660-2. , Joel Samaha (1 January 2016). Criminal Law. Cengage Learning. pp. 530–. ISBN 978-1-305-85660-8. , and passing mentions in dozen others. I think this is enough to push him over the threshold, given that the coverage in books is enduring, so this is not just someone who was discussed in newspapers, to be forgotten next month. Academics and activists see his story as still relevant, 10 or so years down the road. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- BLP1E doesn't apply at all here. As that guideline says, "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Leibowitz has been the subject of RS over many years. Besides the sources already in the article we find 2009, 2013, 2015, 2017. Also see the books mentioned by User:Piotrus. Finally, consider this GScholar search to see that discussion of Leibowitz is extensive and ongoing in the scholarly community. An easy pass of GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Exceptionally poor nomination. More background is provided in this book and a quick BEFORE search reveals indepth sources and an apparent lasting impact.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sufficient coverage for stand-alone notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2018 (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.