Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Kronberg (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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Glass  Cobra  14:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth Kronberg
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 Kronberg 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 Kronberg because we don't have the appropriate sources to allow us to do that.--Leatherstocking (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject was the main topic of an extensive article in Washington Monthly, "Publish or Perish", which was also excerpted in the Wall Street Journal and on a CBS news website. as well as a Mother Jones (magazine) blog, That article alone is sufficient to establish notability.   Will Beback    talk    20:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC) I just came across this article: "After suicide, Leesburg widow sues LaRouche", Loudon Times-Mirror. If we add that there will be 18 sources, which is a good indication that this is a notable topic.  I should note that Leatherstocking has also AFD'ed a second article related to the LaRouche movement today, Jeremiah Duggan.    Will Beback    talk    21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mention above, these are actually articles about LaRouche, hence the WP:COATRACK problem.--Leatherstocking (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please quote the text from WP:COATRACK that you're referencing. I don't recall anything in there about sources.   Will Beback    talk    02:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also WP:COATRACK is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. It isn't a reason to delete an article.   Will Beback    talk    02:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:COATRACK describes a particular kind of violation of WP:NPOV, which is a core policy. A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. Kenneth Kronberg, the nominal subject, was not notable simply as the editor of publications. The article is not actually about him, but instead uses a non-notable individual as pretext for yet another fork of the great LaRouche melodrama at Wikipedia. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the problem is COATRACK, then the solution is to edit the text. AfDs are concerned with notability which is a different matter. Since Kronberg has been the subject of a profile in a mainstream news source, the notability is established.   Will Beback    talk    02:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The in-depth Washington Monthly piece establishes notability, particularly as others have picked it up and commented on it. This is an issue that we can reasonably expect will get more coverage in future too, as the man's widow has started a lawsuit.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article is about Kenneth Kronberg, then we are in violation of WP:BLP1E. If it is about his widow, it should be renamed, and we should be looking at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY issues. --Leatherstocking (talk)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The claim in the deletion rational about too few sources, is contradicted by the references in the article. From the coverage in the Washington Monthly and others referenced, this is not a BIO1E. Tom Harrison Talk 01:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Easily meets notability criterion. 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/Jeremiah Duggan (2nd nomination) JoshuaZ (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —   Will Beback    talk    03:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  —   Will Beback    talk    03:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability established by press coverage. Everyking (talk) 05:46, 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. No BLP1E concerns either. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Very clearly a POV-based nomination. Suggest a Snow Keep.    DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: the views being expressed here reflect a common belief that if it's in a newspaper, it belongs in Wikipedia. I think this is a misreading of policy, as seen in WP:NOT. Newspapers devote a lot of space to rumors, allegations and gossip -- encyclopedias do not. Once a story moves beyond the stage of allegations and innuendo, to a point where there are criminal charges for example, it becomes suitable material for an encyclopedia. In this case, that is clearly not going to happen. I would suggest a review of WP:NOTSCANDAL. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Wrong. As has been explained to you during this debate, the level of press coverage is sufficient. Your concerns are thus not a matter for this process to deal with. Your letter by letter reading of WP:NOT is also not a good sign nor is the fact that your edits are solely related to the LaRouche movement. Don't push your luck. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is a core policy. Do you have a conflicting interpretation of the policy, or do you suggest that we simply disregard it? --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've suggested no such thing. I'm telling you that such concerns are not a matter for this process to deal with. I don't care about LaRouche, I care about the way you're (ab)using AfD to solve an issue that should be dealt with through editing and dispute resolution. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * MERGE Of the 17 sources cited, half do not mention the article subject, and the others only mention him as a suicide victim. As far as I can see, there are no substantial sources on the subject prior to his suicide in 2007 (which was a notable event because of his involvement in LaRouche's movement). Per WP:BIO1E; merge to another article, e.g. LaRouche movement. -- JN 466  20:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets the test of notability.--Dking (talk) 21:04, 13 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.