Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Kontorovich


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Eugene Kontorovich

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Being a writer for the Washington Post does not make the writer notable. Article lacks discussion of the subject proper in reliable independent secondary sources. KDS4444 (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * keep (I created the article). There are plenty of sources solely about the subject, so he meets the GNG.  I wasn't sure how to use those sources all that well, so I just had them on the talk page.  But yes, he's notable.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * He's also a writer for the largest English paper in Israel, the Washington Post and many other papers including the National Review . Other sources include . Hobit (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My concern is that things like being a writer for a national newspaper does not make the writer himself notable unless someoneelse writes something in such a newspaper about the subject— it looks like he was the subject of the article on the Ynetnews.com website, but I was not able to assess the the significance of the site as a source of reliable, independent news coverage of broad public interest. Also, it looks like he is referenced several times in various publications (such as this one and this one and this one, among many others), and while I agree that he appears to be of some professional and legal interest, these references appear to be to his work, not to discussion of him.  Being a professor of law at Northwestern does not qualify him as notable either.  We need evidence of his being the subject of multiple reliable independent secondary sources that discuss him non-trivially, and to the extent that those sources are things like newspapers, the paper needs to be of broad public interest and either national or regional circulation.  Web sites are difficult to use as references because their breadth of readership can be difficult to assess— on the other hand, if he is in fact notable, finding sources other than Internet-only publications should not be difficult.  If it is difficult, then perhaps he is not (yet) notable.  KDS4444 (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 175 is that Ynetnews is a reliable source. Ynetnews is the online website for Yedioth Ahronoth, the most widely read newspaper in Israel (according to the Wikipedia article). Cunard (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In this day-and-age many notable things and people are only found on the Internet--paper isn't dead, but it's not the end-all-be-all either. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * ?. GS h-index at bare minimum for field. Does WP:Gng help? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete as, in this case, he's not showing any signs of being significant in his field or as a professor, GS shows only few numbers, simply not enough overall. SwisterTwister   talk  06:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you disagree with him meeting the GNG? He is a professor, but that's not what he is known for per se.  Hobit (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Subjects can qualify for an article by meeting WP:GNG while not meeting secondary, subject-specific notability guidelines such as WP:PROF. North America1000 07:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * .Keep. Substantial coverage of his views/positions shown by a GNews search, and coverage of their views, not their personal life, is the key test for someone whose notability rests on their scholarship. GScholar certainly shows a significant presence, and GBooks hits are not trivial. Article calls for expansion, not deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Normally I'd think the subject's notability rather marginal (so I wouldn't !vote). However for a person who is politically controvertial for their ideas I am nervous of deletion without a strong reason. In this case I am not seeing a strong reason. Thincat (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on the strength of the evidence presented here for having an article, and the weakness of the evidence and argument against, I now think the subject clearly meets our notability guidelines. For me in this case the presumption for having an article leads on rather strongly to me thinking we ought to have an article. Thincat (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Of the current sources, two are his own journalist profiles, the next is his university one, and the last 2 are mere news stories. As a scientist or professor, we've never considered 276 a significant number, regardless if it was Harvard Law Journal, because it's not showing it was a major paper or an otherwise significantly known achievement; next, because the next one is a mere 110 quickly followed by 92, it shows there's no otherwise consistent convincing; if he was a major figure in his field, there would've been at least one significant paper. WP:GNG is not policy and the first paragraph of it states as such and the article in fact states otherwise of "significant major news" as notability cannot be inherited from anything or anyone. If we were to analyze this as WP:GNG, a search here found nothing but mere announcements, profiles and mentions, none of which substantiate notability. Now, seeing his CV, I see 1 named visiting professorship for 1 season, but that's it, his listed papers are a mere contributor or associate. SwisterTwister   talk  21:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you addressing the audience or replying to me? If the latter is this a "strong reason"? Thincat (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete not enough citation to pass the notability requirements for a legal scholar, no other show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you identify why you feel he doesn't meet the GNG? Sources (list above) include:    . Hobit (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also bothered by the idea of relying on a raw citation count for a legal authority who's cited in dozens of court cases, where impact looks to be more direct and substantial. One cite on a key point in a major court decision should count for more than two dozen mentions in routine academics' papers. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ping Note that additional sources have been presented in the discussion below after your !vote was posted. North America1000 07:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The article notes: "About two months ago, Professor Eugene Kontorovich stood before a special US congressional committee and laid out what he sees as the irrationality of boycotting Israel. Kontorovich, 40, is considered a world-class expert in constitutional and international law, and deals mainly with the issue of international boycotts. Kontorovich said the committee members sought deeper understanding of boycotts against Israel and so invited him to speak. ... He was born in Kiev, Ukraine, and moved to the US with his parents at the age of three. His father is an economics professor, so the academic career path was a given for him. He studied law at the University of Chicago and began teaching there at 26. He then clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. “He was a teacher for life,” he says.  Kontorovich decided to move to Israel with his wife and four children four years ago. His family was immediately taken in as olim, but later the professor was asked to present Ukrainian documents to prove his eligibility for the law of return. “This is what’s asked of Jews born in the Commonwealth of Independent States,” he explains. ... Kantorovich follows events online. He has no television, and during his scant free time, he studies Hebrew and reads the works of American poet T. S. Eliot and Jewish-Russian poet Joseph Brodsky. When asked how he defines himself, he has a complex answer. “I am Israeli, a man of the world, Jewish, American,” he says."  The article notes: "Eugene Kontorovich is an unlikely media darling, at least on paper. He is a legal scholar whose specialties include international law, maritime piracy and law and economics, and he has a slight Russian accent. But Kontorovich is one of the most entertaining legal scholars one is likely to come across. This is true both because of his youth, his charming accent, his sense of humor and his lively delivery. And readers of The Jewish Press will be interested to know that he is also a frum family man and knowledgeable Torah student. ... Kontorovich was born in Kiev and moved with his family to the United States when he was a young boy. He attended the University of Chicago for both undergraduate school and law school, and he is currently an associate professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law which is just outside of Chicago. Last academic year Kontorovich was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. Albert Einstein and others of the greatest scholars in the United States have been members of the famed Institute. Kontorovich used his time there to complete his latest book, one on maritime law called, “Justice at Sea,” which is being published by Harvard University Press."  The article notes: "A month ago the New York Times ran an op-ed deploring the European initiative to label settlement goods, written by Eugene Kontorovich. The article was titled, “Europe mislabels Israel,” and described the occupied territories in the most benign manner: “areas that came under [Israel’s] control in 1967.” Kontorovich was identified in the article as a professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. Middle East Monitor says that he is also a settler."  The article notes: "I recently attended a reception and dinner in Washington, D.C. sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) in which Professor Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of International Law at Northwestern University and Member of the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton University, gave a compelling lecture regarding President Obama and the US/Israel relationship. His central thesis is that while it is somewhat subtle (because it takes place in the diplomatic arena, where words are minced and friendships simulated) the US/Israel partnership is demonstrably worse than it was under the George W. Bush administration. According to Professor Kontorovich’s analysis, he sees four basic problems with Obama’s management of the US/Israel alliance. The Professor and I recently had a conversation about his presentation as well as his overall thoughts on Middle East policy under President Obama. My summary follows: ..."  The article notes: "However, [Alan] Clemmons recalls that a real breakthrough came “later on that trip when we had the opportunity to meet Prof. [Eugene] Kontorovich during a dinner at a winery. “Here was one of the bright minds in the world... on addressing BDS under the US Constitution,” he explained. ... Where did the idea for such legislation come from? Kontorovich teaches at Northwestern University Law School and works for the Kohelet Policy Forum in Israel. The articulate and confident professor explained that prior to the legislative efforts countering BDS, he was mostly “just an academic” dabbling in foreign policy issues. Clemmons and Sabag contacted Kontorovich, asking him if he had ideas for combating BDS, a symptom of what they all viewed as underlying antisemitism. Kontorovich was impressed that the initial groundswell of support was from South Carolina’s non-Jewish legislators."  The article notes: "As the UN Security Council and International Criminal Court return to focusing on Israel, an about-to-be-published study reveals new sides to Council Resolution 242, recognized as the key resolution relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict, that could alter perceptions of issues in dispute, especially regarding borders. According to an article by Prof. Eugene Kontorovich of Northwestern University, to be published soon in the Chicago Journal of International Law, a new side has emerged in the unending debate over the meaning of UNSC Resolution 242, which establishes principles for setting Israeli borders and withdrawal from territories conquered in 1967. Kontorovich’s study compares Resolution 242 to all 18 other Security Council resolutions dealing with territorial withdrawals and finds that the resolution was unique in its ambiguity as to how much territory Israel needs to withdraw from, with other resolutions being explicit about a full withdrawal. In the article, Kontorovich writes that there has always been a debate as to whether the phrase in UN Resolution 242 “withdrawal from territories” obligates Israel to withdraw from the entire West Bank and Golan Heights, or merely some portion of them as agreed upon in negotiations."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Eugene Kontorovich to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Comment and analysis - Any article that begins paragraphs with His life story.... Kontorovich decided....Kantorovich follows events online. He has no television, and during his scant free time, he studies Hebrew and reads the works of American poet.... is clearly not independent and our simplest standards state this, regardless of publication, because it's still the contents that matter in examination. Therefore such a personal profile as this, would not satisfy WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" since he's only his own words. After all, we've long established WP:GNG is not a policy, but a mere suggestive guideline for potential notability and WP:GNG states it itself.
 * Source 2 is simply an interview where "he explain[s]) about someone else": "Where did the idea for such legislation come from? Kontorovich was impressed...." That's not significant nor sufficiently independent.
 * Source 3 is a mere few paragraphs because the article, as a whole entirely, is simply about a political subject, not about the man himself. As such, this still wouldn't help for WP:PROF, since that's not establishing he's a major figure in his field, and he's simply a faculty professor. We're not a faculty listing and that would apply in policy WP:NOTWEBHOST. SwisterTwister   talk  20:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Kontorovich was a fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies. If that doesn't meet WP:PROF#2 it's time to scrap the guideline.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He was a "member." I'd agree that being a faculty member of IAS meets WP:Prof#2, but not being an ordinary member by itself.--Jahaza (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is significant coverage in independent sources as demonstrated above. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  23:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. Subjects can qualify for an article by meeting GNG, part of Wikipedia's core notability guideline page at WP:N, while not meeting secondary, subject-specific notability guidelines such as WP:PROF. North America1000 07:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Northamerica1000. Passes WP:GNG. — <b style="color:black">Yash</b><b style="color:grey">talk</b> <b style="color:grey">stalk</b> 15:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- best known for his controversial views; GNG is met in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 19 February 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.