Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer Kuvin (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Secret ^account 14:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Kuvin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable biography. The freely viewable GNews hits I get are about legal cases themselves, not focusing on the lawyer himself, thus he lacks the significant coverage necessary to merit an article. Cybercobra (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rework - Mr. Kuvin is mentioned is about 70 news stories. As noted by the nom, the stories are mostly about cases he was the lawyer for. However, it is my opinion that being part of notable cases makes a lawyer notable. A possible alternative to deletion would be to rework the article to be about the law firm he partners (Leopold~Kuvin) rather than Mr. Kuvin himself. Either way the material should be kept in some form.--ThaddeusB (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am skeptical (though quite open to being convinced) that any of the cases besides the Epstein one are notable. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, as has now been pointed out, notability is not inherited. I would not have a problem with some sort of merge though (perhaps to the case), but there probably wouldn't be much appropriate content to merge after trimming for relevance anyway... --Cybercobra (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even working the Epstein case does not make the subject notable as the case had no effect on the practice or definition of law. -Drdisque (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Thaddeus may opine that being part of a notable case makes a lawyer (or his firm) notable, but that's explicitly contrary to WP:N and WP:V ... quite aside that a large enough case may have many attorneys involved. Sources must still be substantially about the subject, not merely mention or quote him. RGTraynor 09:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. You're mixing WP:GNG and WP:V. Substantial sources about the subject are required when the sources are needed to establish notability. When for example you're writing about a subject that is notable because they won an award, you only need to verify that that particular claim is true. The rest of the information can be then come from fragments of brief mentions all over the place, but still make the person notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do. It's true that all you need to do is verify that a particular claim is true when there's an explicit prima facie notability pass. Which would that be in this attorney's case? What element of WP:ANYBIO, for instance, do you claim that he meets? RGTraynor 10:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Unlike a very limited subset of awards, we're dealing with a lawsuit here, and lawsuits do not automatically make those involved notable; we are thus indeed in need of sources to establish notability. None have thus far been shown. Per the GNG, many merely passing mentions don't confer notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ThaddeusB. Being constantly featured in notable cases to me satisfies WP:ANYBIO part 2: a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. --Cyclopia^talk 10:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence that any of the other cases is notable? --Cybercobra (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So many editors make that claim without reading the footnote to #2: "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians." Could you cite such books for us, please? RGTraynor 19:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence of "notable cases," just routine stuff. The phrasing of some of the case descriptions also raises BLP issues -- how, for example, can the funeral home operator be described as "unscrupulous" when the reference since neither the court case nor the investigation is finished? Borderline PR. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing I can find would indicate that he did anything really significant in the practice of law to make him particularly notable (i.e. new precedent, new technique, etc.). Notable cases, in my opinion, do not confer notability since notability is not inherited. Thus, in my opinion, he does not qualify for inclusion. As a side note, the article itself is also kind of spammy. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.