Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Lebed

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. Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Lebed

Jonathan Lebed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

no proof that this person is notable enough to have a wiki page Redsky89 (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Jonathan Lebed was the sole subject of an extremely lengthy and detailed article written by famed financial author and journalist Michael Lewis, which was published in the New York Times in 2001. The handy Google Books search tool above shows that he has received significant coverage in severable books about the stock market and financial manipulation. He is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Subject of the article meets WP:GNG. There are enough coverages to reliable sources that establish the subject notability. Wikicology (talk) 08:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are plenty of in-depth sources available to meet WP:GNG. I am One of Many (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Poorly written article but he is notable in some circles.(once again I am peeved having to say keep)--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete I found many reference in the search, but it should be included in the article itself to meet WP:N - IMDJ2 13:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that references are not in the body of an article is not a valid reason for deletion. Wikicology (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2014 (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.