Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Kovner
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
— User:Smmurphy, 15:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:NOR||WP:N (Wikipedia:Verifiability)