Deletion of Joseph Kovner

Comment: To me, the subject and article easily pass , , and . The question I see above is, I think, does the subject receive significant coverage (which is an important factor in NOR and ). 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:NOR||WP:N)

Comment: 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 un-of-the-mill|run-of-the-mill government lawyer
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:R)