Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marsha Levick


 * 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. ✗ plicit  11:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Marsha Levick

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

While her career is undoubtedly varied, celebrated and successful, Levick isn't notable per WP:GNG. As a lawyer she isn't a clear pass, certainly not under WP:NCORP neither as an adjunct professor under WP:NACADEMIC. Her list of awards must fill that wall nicely, but they don't help establish notability and, crucially, we lack "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, United States of America,  and Pennsylvania. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:COMMON if anything. From what you are saying our notability criteria are thoroughly screwed up. She is recognized as a leading expert. Her awards are not a joke. In any case, contrary to the nom, significant coverage in independent sources does exist, even in books. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. WP:ANYBIO: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Academic work cited in this book. Covered in this book. Work cited again in this book. Significant coverage in the Philadelphia Inquirer here, in the Times Leader here, quoted in the Philadelphia Tribune here, quoted in the Washington Times here, in Bloomberg here. There is more coverage in the Florida Times here. The subject has been established as notable through significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. She hence meets WP:GNG. She also meets WP:NACADEMIC, not because of her job as a lawyer or adjunct professorship, but because her research has had a significant impact in her scholarly discipline. This is demonstrated by the first page of Google Scholar here - which shows dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed studies, many co-authored, published in reputable law journals in many prestigious universities. Her work has also been cited in several books and dozens of papers, a perusal of Scholar is also needed, but I get a substantial number of hits in the Australian Lexis Nexis also. Lastly, she received a highly prestigious academic award or honour at a national or international level. These are listed in the article.MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per MaxnaCarta. Significant sources are available. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 13:32, 28 July 2022 (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.