Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Levs

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. I'm withdrawing the AfD, since it seems clear the article is not going to be deleted DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Levs[edit]

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

Non notable author. Worldcat shows his book is still in only 10 libraries,and nothing else here is notable. there have been ,any paternal leave cases at EEO, & no evidence his is anywhere near remarkable. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep, User:DGG You may well be right about the case being unremarkable, the thing is, it attracted a good deal of coverage (the Today Show, the New York Times) This could, of course, be the result of journalists keying in to a story about a journalist even though it was unimportant as a legal precedent, but there was a lot of coverage, and that is the gauge of WP:GNG. I've put some of the coverage on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

should the article be about the case, then? DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think not (although it should certainly be less hagiographic). He is not notable exclusively for the lawsuit. The book got some coverage, reviews; he hosted segments on a CNN, parenting show, a hosting gig that got at least this [1] general circulation mention, (hard to search journalists, because most links are by them not about them) but, bingo! here's [2] a pre-lawsuit, pre paternity-leave-fiasco profile of Josh Levs journalist, in an online publication covering new media. User:DGG It is my impression that we do lawsuit instead of bio when it's a notable legal case related to an individual who is not otherwise notable. This is a successful, career journalist who parlayed a legal case into a book contract. An article about the man, with the legal case as a section in it seems more appropriate to me. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this. [3] E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am a member of the press and it is a beautiful page. 216.130.138.2 (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the anonymous author of that last edit, if you want to participate in a useful way, bring published profiles of Levs. We need evidence of notability, not mere opinions here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2015 (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.