Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan (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   keep. Consensus is that the article meets notability requirements. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeremiah Duggan Death of Jeremiah Duggan
AfDs for this article: 


 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article doesn't seem to meet the general notability guideline because there are not sufficient reliable, third-party sources that focus specifically on the subject. The sources available are generally either LaRouche sources or self-published sites, and the available press coverage focuses mostly on LaRouche and tells us little to nothing about Duggan himself; the article appears to be of the variety described at WP:COATRACK. The bottom line is that we can't write a biography of Duggan because we don't have the appropriate sources to allow us to do that. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Duggan's death made international news. There are at least a dozen major articles on the topic in reliable, mainstream newspapers. There are 31 sources in the article. It has been an ongoing matter, and has seen the involvement of senior government officials in the UK. I should note that Leatherstocking has also AFD'ed a second article related to the LaRouche movement today, Kenneth Kronberg. While a move to a title like "Death of Jeremiah Duggan" might be appropriate, deletion is not.   Will Beback    talk    21:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A dozen? I Googled 'death jeremiah duggan'. Top article? WP. The rest of the front page results included not one major news source, and only a link on 'freedomofmind.com' (an 'anti-cult' website) to a BBC video. The second page of Google results, had a Channel 4 video. Even looking at the WP articles, we see several re-workings of the same sources newspaper-wise, and 'recaps' when the inquest was opened (an inquest which is fairly routine for suicide, and in at least two of those articles covered by the newspaper court reporter, rather than, say, an investigative piece). There are 31 sources? If you call the website of a band a source, perhaps, or several that don't even mention Duggan. Achromatic (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This has received international press coverage since it happened in 2003, and not just brief mentions, but in-depth coverage, including this long piece in The Washington Post. The story is regularly updated as the family, supported by British and European MPs, makes its way through the appeals process in an effort to re-open the investigation; for example, Hugh Muir gave an update in The Guardian, July 1, 2009. Duggan also has an entry in Cadres: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases (2008); see here (though it's possible this simply reflects our coverage). SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mention above, these are actually articles about LaRouche, hence the WP:COATRACK problem. Can you cite an example of an article that demonstrates Duggan's individual notability, independent of any link to LaRouche? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The articles are about what happened to him, not about LaRouche as such. Duggan himself is notable only for the circumstances of his death, but that clearly is notable. The article can easily be moved to Death of Jeremiah Duggan. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Leatherstocking is correctly describing WP:COATRACK. Many topics related to LaRouche don't have any notability independent of him, but that doesn't make those articles coatracks. The same can be said of countless articles and topics. How many articles about Michelle Obama fail to mention Barack Obama? That doesn't make her WP biography a COATRACK.   Will Beback    talk    01:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bad analogy, because it doesn't involve any scandal-mongering, If Wikipedia had an article on Jennifer Fitzgerald, which apparently it doesn't, that would be a better analogy. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:COATRACK isn't a reasons for deletion, nor is a violation of NPOV,. Those can be remedied through editing. AfD is to decide whether the topic is inherently notable. Due to the large amount of mainstream coverage of his death, there is clear evidence of notability.   Will Beback    talk    00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the article can stand on its own or be merged with Schiller Institute or LaRouche Youth Movement. If kept I agree with SV that the name should be changed to "Death of Jeremiah Duggan," because the article is only partly about him.  By the way, I just accidentally edited the article without being logged-in .  Lyndon LaRouche articles should make it clear when using Dennis King as a source that he is a LaRouche critic.  I learned of this discussion at Wikipedia Review. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I can find slightly more sources that describe King as an "expert" as describe him as a "critic", and one that does both: "Dennis King, a journalist and LaRouche expert who is critical of the group, ..." Both "critic" and "expert" are POV assertions and I think they're better left out unless they're particularly germane. In the case of the text you edited, it isn't a controversial assertion and it could be extensively referenced to other sources.   Will Beback    talk    08:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To show that Mr. King is a critic, all we need to do is link to his anti-LaRouche website, right? He might be an expert also, that's probably fine to say, since he did write a book a few years ago on the subject. Cla68 (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't think this meets notability criteria. The suicide verdict was reviewed and upheld. There seems to be a huge weight placed on the connection to the LaRouche movement, though his "involvement", such as it was was only a matter of weeks, at most. Take that out, or give it a more appropriate due regard, and you have nothing of note, and in and of itself, I don't think the connection is as strongly warranted as others apparently believe. Achromatic (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the verdict, the controversy over the death has received widespread attention and received significant coverage. the article covers the dispute. We don't have to decide what the connection was in actual fact. We just verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. The last AfD was speedy-closed since there are so many sources for the topic.   Will Beback    talk    16:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There appears to be off-site canvassing regarding this AfD.   Will Beback    talk    16:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would hope you are not implying that because something is discussed at website that shall not be named, in a way that in no way implies anyone should comment or vote a certain way, that people who are quite capable of contributing on their own are being canvassed? Achromatic (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Will is referring to Wikipedia Review, because that is a public forum that many regular Wikipedia editors read or belong to, including SV for example, so discussing deletion requests there is not a violation of the canvassing policy. I think he is referring to another site although I can't be sure because he didn't give further detail. Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cla68 himself said that he came here because of on offsite announcement of this AfD. Another editor who rarely participates in Wikipedia has !voted in this and another LaRouche-related AfD. I'm not saying that !votes are invalid - that's for the closing admin to determine. I'm just making an observation.   Will Beback    talk    00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you were referring to Wikipedia Review? I'm not going to link to the specific thread there, because it contains other comments on Wikipedia editors which could be construed as personal attacks if posted on-wiki.  In any event, if you are going to allege or imply underhanded or unethical activity related to this RfC, you need to give as much information as possible for the closing admin.  I don't recognize most of the editor's usernames who are voting to delete the article, so I don't know if they are regular readers of Wikipedia Review or not. Again, even if they are, the Review is forum that is visible and widely read, as well as participated in, by a broad spectrum of Wikipedia editors, including several arbitrators. Cla68 (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that as of the time of this comment, I had voted Delete, and also participate on Wikipedia Review using the same username, I can only presume that you are referring to me, though by all means, clarify that you are not if this is not the case. As such, I would hope that you are not implying that someone with over 600 edits, though not in any Top 10 edit counts is invalid as a !voter, on the grounds of "rare participation" (I'm not sure that by most people in the wider world, rare participation would be an average edit every 2nd day over a couple of years), or due to the fact that I had voted on another AfD on LaRouche. Given that the scope of my article editing ranges from emergency medicine to pop culture to immigration to to technology, I think it would behoove you to assume good faith, rather than make remarks that "closing admins will need to determine whether !votes are invalid" whilst referencing my comments.Achromatic (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As it stands, it is officially a suicide, in which a young man made a couple of phone calls in which he seemed distraught, then ran around in traffic on a busy street until he was struck and killed. Then the family and anti-cultists don't want to accept the official verdict. It is largely a WP:COATRACK. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or an archive of traffic fatalities or suicides of previously nonnotable people. Edison (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Many people become notable because of their death. Was Nicole Brown Simpson notable before being murdered? No. Is the OJ Simpson criminal trial non-notable because he was found not-guilty? No. Things are notable when they've been widely noted. In this case, there have even been questions raised about the matter in the House of Commons. So this is not an ordinary traffic accident. I refer you to the list of references in the article.   Will Beback    talk    00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm uncomfortable with this article, along similar lines to Edison's thinking. This article reads to me like a veiled implication of the LaRouche movement, couched in an article about a young man who may or may not have committed suicide. There doesn't appear to be a lot to directly link the two, other than speculative comments in various media, and when you separate the LaRouche involvement from the subject, you get a sad case of a young man who died too soon under circumstances that may or may not be questionable. That doesn't satisfy WP:BIO, to my thinking. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to affirm my above opinion, even with the change of name this article still seems to be intended to slant negatively towards the LaRouche faction. This is probably a pointless comment, as it's patently obvious this will be kept and that it has some emphatic defenders, but it would be nice if the article were to be, I dunno, balanced at some point in time to make it more neutral and less a WP:COATRACK as noted above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Our article faithfully reflects the views of the reliable mainstream sources, Tony, which is what NPOV means. We can't make things up in an effort to make LaRouche look better. Even statements from the movement&mdash;blaming a conspiracy by Tony Blair and Al Gore&mdash;haven't exactly helped them either, but we're not their press spokesmen. We can't fix what they say. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I could give a fig whether LaRouche "looks better" or not; I'm saying this reads unbalanced from my viewpoint (which is well outside of the pro- and anti-Larouche camps) and that suggests it needs editing to be properly acceptable. The tone of the article and the way it's reported give the firm indication that the writers feel there's some sort of involvement by outside forces in the incident, which is why I'm uncomfortable with the way it reads. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per BLP1E. If consensus is to keep, at least get rid of all the conspiracy nonsense and tangents. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are multiple independent sources directly on the subject of Jeremiah Duggan, both from Britain and Germany. I do not think WP:BLP1E applies because there are several events: the death itself, the original German police investigation, the British coroners' court hearing and its unusual narrative verdict, the discussions between the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the German authorities after the FCO took up the Duggan family's case, the independent investigation by Paul Canning in 2006-07, and the Judicial Review of the Attorney-General's refusal to have a second inquest in 2008. This makes several events in a longrunning and notable case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Extensively referenced to reliable sources in the UK and European press. Rename as appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 00:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * comment Why are people quoting BLP 1E? He's not a living person. There is however an identical rule at WP:BIO1E   DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep—frankly I'm surprised that this was put up for deletion. The individual and the controversy surrounding his death have been covered by a number of reliable secondary sources, which are presented in the article. Furthermore, I feel that some arguments for deletion misinterpret the concept of 1E in general. If the individual is mainly known for his death, it's still not relevant to 1E. A 1E violation is an article actually about a notable event, in which the subject is one of many involved, and the event does not surround the subject. When the event is synonymous with the subject, it is usually not a 1E violation to write about the subject in an article that also covers the event. What is needed for the subject is only a basic indication of notability beyond the event, which ironically the event itself usually provides, as the mainstream media reports on the live of the subject outside the event. —Ynhockey (Talk) 01:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Duggan's death was tragic regardless of the actual surrounding circumstances. However, there's no claim that this si a single event since it lead to serious ongoing issues. Moreover, the matter has also been discussed in the general context of the LaRouchian movement. I'm also concerned that it appears that Leatherstocking is POV pushing by trying to get articles deleted that have the potential to make look the LaRouche movement bad. See Articles for deletion/Kenneth Kronberg (2nd nomination) JoshuaZ (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Joshua, if any POV-pushing is going on related to the LaRouche articles, do you feel that Leatherstocking is the only one doing it? From what I've observed, including in a couple of RfARs, it appears that NPOV editing to the LaRouche articles could be improved by many of the "regulars" of those articles. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, if I were less inclined to assume good faith I'd be suspicious that the editors whom you refer just by sheer coincidence happen to be editors that you've interacted with negatively in the past. Moreover, whether other editors are editing problematically in regard to the LaRouche articles is utterly irrelevant to whether we have a problem with Leatherstocking. So let's try to keep things marginally relevant to this AfD ok? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is whether you have a problem with Leatherstocking, or with Cla68, relevant to this AfD? I think speculating about the motives of other editors is an extremely lame approach to arguing your position here. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Having a problem with either of you would not be relevant to the AfD. Your repeated POV pushing on LaRouche articles is a problem. Dismissing such concern as "lame" doesn't do much. (Incidentally, something I do have an actual problem with is referring to yourself in the third person in a written form. In casual speech that's fine. In this sort of context it is confusing and comes across as pretentious). JoshuaZ (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing to remember, is that when an editor is trying to combat POV-pushing in a certain subject area it can make that editor look like they're pushing the other side, when all they're really trying to do is balance the coverage of the topic. Haven't you ever felt like you were inadvertently in that position?  I have. Cla68 (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Occasionally, but I a) don't see much issues with POV pushing in the other direction. If anything, this problem has caused many good editors trying to prevent pro-LaRouche POV from getting too extensive to possibly seem as pushing an anti-LaRouche POV. Moreover, the nomination of clearly notable articles like this cannot be explained by your hypothesis in any case. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cannot be explained? Remember, that one of the criteria for AfD used to be if an article was too POV.  I know that because I once nominated (unsuccessfully) a BLP for deletion based on that criteria.  AfD is one of many forums that are useful for gaining otherwise uninvolved editors', such as yourself, comments and suggestions for an article.  I'm sure, also, that you mean to express a full picture of any POV pushing that might be going on in the LaRouche articles, such as, for example that an author of a book that is critical of LaRouche, is actually a regular contributor to LaRouche articles in Wikipedia, but has apparently never been challenged on that by other editors who regularly edit LaRouche articles and also happen to be administrators and thus stewards of Wikipedia policy enforcement? Cla68 (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is neutral in that it reflects the views of all the reliable sources. We have in fact (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) minimized some of the allegations, because they are so serious and involve living persons&mdash;they are in the article, but we do not have an extended discussion of them, as some of the sources do. The coverage has been widespread and has involved in-depth pieces from the high-quality media. Here, for example, is the first part of an extended BBC Newsnight piece by Tim Samuels, which anyone familiar with the UK will recognize confers notability almost in and of itself. The attempt to re-open the German investigation has involved a number of prominent public figures, including numerous and senior MPs from all the major parties; there was an early day motion signed by 100 MPs, and the matter is now before Germany's Federal Constitutional Court. It is an issue that is strongly disliked by the LaRouche movement, for obvious reasons. As for Dennis King, he made three edits to the article in 2007, and is currently used as a source in it once, and only as one source among several to support that the movement has been known for using violence against its opponents; other sources saying this include academics, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, many of them pre-dating King as sources, so he is hardly alone.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The key word here is "allegations." Newspapers frequently devote a lot of space to rumors, gossip, etc. Encyclopedias should not. Since this story never got beyond the "allegations" phase to any concrete demonstration of wrongdoing, the cosmetically re-named "Death of Jeremiah Duggan" article runs afoul of WP:NOTSCANDAL. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  —   Will Beback    talk    03:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —   Will Beback    talk    03:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Article moved. Per discussion here, I've moved the article to Death of Jeremiah Duggan.   Will Beback    talk    03:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly notable based on press coverage. Everyking (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability has obviously been established. The rest of your concerns are not a matter for this process to resolve and should be disregarded. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep apparently a POV-based nomination.    DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - not just in the news for a few days; this incident is notable enough to be the subject of a cse before Germany's highest court. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - not one event, and for those with BLP1E on your mind you might want to read about his death, apparently it was notable (the BLP stands for Biographies of living persons). Aboutmovies (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think there are problems concerning the balance of the article (for example, the LaRouche movement infobox seems wholly inappropriate) but these can be sorted out by normal editing procedures. Article deletion is not appropriate. Thincat (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sam Blacketer (under the new article name). Would be more comfortable if the article dispensed with the LaRouche movement infobox, as his involvement with the movement was brief, and attributing his death to his contact with the movement seems to take a definite side in the debate. -- JN 466  21:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The death of Jeremiah Duggan has been the subject of dozens of articles in the respected mainstream British and German press as well as in Italian, Israeli and U.S. papers. It triggered an important investigative piece in the Washington Post Sunday edition by April Witt in 2004. Many of the articles focussed on the suspicious role of the LaRouchians and reported in detail on allegations of the group's cultism and anti-Semitism. I am also for keeping the LaRouche movement infobox, given the close connection between Duggan's death and his attendance at a LaRouche indoctrination conference/school that has been repeatedly reported in the media. The idea that the infobox should be removed simply because his contact with the group was "brief" is ridiculous--it only takes a few moments to beat someone to death once you've decided he's a "spy" for the enemy (or to beat him to where he flees in terror leaving behind the bloody passport that LaRouche apologists are always so curiously silent about).--Dking (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that if Dking is going to participate in this discussion, he should disclose his conflict of interest. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speculation, even if it is sourced speculation, is not a sufficient reason for adding the template. It would be entirely different if there had been a conviction, or even just a trial alleging guilt; neither is the case here as far as I am aware. -- JN 466  12:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: for those who are commenting on the infobox, please see Template talk:LaRouche movement. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Did Jeremiah Duggan, or did he not, attend the Schiller Institute conference in 2003? Was he, or was he not, induced to attend a cadre school in Wiesbaden after the conference? Did he, or did he not, call his mother and tell her he was in big trouble? Was he or was he not found dead on a highway a few blocks from the offices of the LaRouche organization? The infobox should remain.--Dking (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has received significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on the discussion, nomination is partisan. Looking at the article, there are plenty of sources suggesting encyclopedic significance.  --Firefly322 (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2009 (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.