Deletion of Howard Grief

Comment: The Jerusalem Post piece does amount to significant coverage, but only one instance of significant coverage.   does call for multiple instances.  And being cited as a reference in one other work also does not rise to the level of notability.  Grief appears to have found a unique argument for the expansion of Israel into the Palestinian territories based on the accords of the San Remo conference.  His opinions would have to be considered on the |fringe, and not at all widely accepted.  Were Grief to obtain widespread acceptance of his position, that might make him notable, but apparently not yet
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: First, this article is about 100 times longer than the available sources can confirm and is way beyond promotional. With that aside, there is a reliable source. The Jerusalem Post article is good, but the others are mainly blogs (the .blogger and .wordpress self published type blogs) and passing mentions. I would say that there is not enough to show  based on the single . I was able to read quite a bit from the blogs and he is truly notable for what he has done, just not notable by Wikipedia guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)