Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Litvak


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — Yashtalk stalk 04:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Jesse Litvak

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No claim to notability. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I thought this article was maybe borderline for notability but I created it anyway, because there is significant media coverage of the case and it led to a much wider investigation into fraud in bond-trading, which I also planned to write about. I don't really have a strong opinion about it necessarily, but obviously lean towards keeping it. Cypresscross (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I've added a new sub-section connecting the case to broader implications for the government efforts to prosecute fraud in the bond market. I've also expanded the section on the details of the charges. Probably the key to the notability here is the fact that the Litvak case was the first and also most important case in a much broader regulatory effort. Cypresscross (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The coverage seems to indicate that his case/conviction is a big deal in the financial world, and The Wall Street journal called the trial/re-trial "a case that sparked changes to Wall Street sales tactics". I see three hits in GBooks with very minor coverage. The material probably belongs some place in Wikipedia (e.g. Jefferies Group, maybe an article about the court case), but this one is too soon for me to call. Sorry if that isn't very helpful. - Location (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I came across the same sources, including the book references. Increasingly I am of the opinion that the subject is notable because he has become the touch point for a much broader effort by regulators, and as the comment above indicates, both the person and the case appear to be leading to major changes on Wall Street. Cypresscross (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This fails the not news test. The charges and prosecution do not rise above the level of regular news coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * move to userspace Sourcing does not support a stand-alone article on Jesse Litvak, but the crime itself got some significant coverage in article not yet on the page "Bond Traders Beware: Jesse Litvak Reversal Is Not a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card" . And securities fraud is (or at least ought to be) a big deal topic, a topic beside which most of out CRIME articles pale into trivia in terms of impact.  Perhaps User:Cypresscross would like to have it moved back to userspace and include some of this material in an (new material: can  link to this article when he gets around to writing that)  article on fraud in bond-trading, it would give him time to do that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Litvak has some serious coverage - including some minor coverage before his legal woes, but major coverage after. This was a groundbreaking case in terms of degree of accountability a securities trader has vs. his clients - and has had a major impact on the industry. It was accepted practice to "fib" in order to close a deal - this was part of the game, and this case has changed that.Icewhiz (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep For the reasons outlined in my comments above. Cypresscross (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep After reading the comments of User:Cypresscross and User:Icewhiz, I searched again, looking to check Icewhiz's assertion of this case having an impact. This: Peter Henning article in Andrew Ross Sorkin's must-read Dealbook section in the New York Times persuaded me.  The NYTimes is paywalled, but the aritcle is about this case and the title says it all: "A Warning to Wall St. About Misleading Clients".E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the current sourcing in the article indicates notability; the subject has had an impact in the financial services sector. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.