Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Kovner


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Kovner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no indication in the article that the subject is more notable than any other lawyer who worked for the US federal government (and there are thousands). With the exception of an obit, none of the sources are actually about Kovner--they're all about someone else and mention him in passing. agt x 15:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of significant coverage to establish notability - per nom, there are only passing mentions in reliable sources, nothing to establish the subject as anything other than a run-of-the-mill government lawyer. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 16:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 16:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 16:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: Did the nominator for deletion read the longer, preceding portion on Kovner? What about all his work for the Congress of Industrial Organizations as first-choice assistant general counsel under the highly controversial Lee Pressman?  Kovner provided an important report on the Little Steel Strike and on the National Labor Relations Board, which the CIO disregarded.  Kovner and Smith fought with Pressman over his pro-Soviet choices for CIO policies; eventually, both Kovner and Smith abandoned Pressman.  Kovner then left the CIO – in which light, yes, the rest of his career was less notable – but that would be to mis-read or miss out on the notability of his years in the CIO (1937–1953).  Delete-happy folk, please read – and, if you don't know the other players mentioned, use those handy Wiki-links and read about them, too. This is what Wikipedia is all about: in this case of American Labor and Unions in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, one book or one article might mention Kovner in passing, but here you get to read an aggregation that would otherwise take ages to put together – and it helps explain important details of what was happening (in this case, big issues facing the CIO and internal machinations of the CIO. What's not notable about that?  (What else is an open-source encyclopedia for, other than to inform and save people time?) --Aboudaqn (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * First, the mudslinging ("delete-happy") isn't necessary. Let's focus on issues. Your argument for keeping this article sounds exactly like WP:SYNTH. Contrary to your unfounded accusation, I did read the entire article, including the part about the CIO. I don't think that an assistant general counsel at that organization is notable absent significant coverage in reliable sources. Could he be mentioned in the articles on the CIO or on Pressman? Sure. Is he sufficiently notable in his own right for a Wikipedia page? You haven't cited sources—either in the article or in your argument above—suggesting that he is. agt x  23:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ample sourcing - mainly on his post-government career. Some are in-depth - e.g. . Seems he was also up before House Un-American Activities Committee. His Labor and ACLU work seem to be quite significant in a google-books run-down.Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your link just looks like a citation to two memos he wrote. Is there something more detailed that Google Books isn't showing me? Sometimes bigger snippets from books are viewable outside the US (where I am), so I might not be able to see what's there. agt x  17:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You can (sometimes, if you are not easily geolocated) BTW fool google by choosing a different country's TLD suffix. He has over 80 true google book hit (ones that his name shows up in the preview). He is cited in scholar, though coverahe of him is more difficult to find between stuff he edited and is mentioned by name. He has a wapo obit (look carefully, nestled between two others, but not too short (I am not sure this is not paid, the digital copy is mangled)). I am sure he has quite a bit of newpaper coverage (I do see some) - though for this pe±riod archive access is usually needed to really find them. He played a role in labor and in civil rights law in the aclu, he is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - To me, the subject and article easily pass WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. The question I see above is, I think, does the subject receive significant coverage (which is an important factor in NOR and WP:N). From N, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Looking over the sources as well as additional sources in newspapers.com (there is a lot of coverage of him in newspapers, but most/all of the newspapers.com material I saw repeats stuff already in the article and cited to newspapers or elsewhere), while he is rarely the main focus of a source, coverage mentioning him describes him and his work sufficiently clearly that I do not think it is original research (or synthesis) to write an article largely on their basis, especially with a fairly complete obituary to help connect the dots. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:12, 26 September 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.