Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Kronberg

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. W.marsh 13:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Kronberg

Kenneth Kronberg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a non-notable biographical subject. The article was created as an attack article, to spam more criticism of LaRouche from Chip Berlet et al, following the pattern of Jeremiah Duggan NathanDW 22:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- Everything in this Wikipedia article already appears in other Wikipedia articles -- this new article appears to be an effort to raise the profile of a scurrilous commentary by a disaffected ex-member of the LaRouche organization, Nick Benton, writing in a small town paper, the Falls Church News-Press. Dennis King had some fairly vicious things to say about Benton back when he was a writer for the LaRouche publication EIR, but suddenly he seems to like Benton just fine, now that Benton has taken to insinuating that LaRouche caused Ken Kronberg to commit suicide. The whole thing seems a bit ghoulish to me -- I'm sure that Dennis King and co. never had a kind word for Kronberg while he lived, and now they seek to use his death to further their agenda. Yuk. --Don't lose that number 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain It should be noted that there is a potential conflict of interest in this nomination. Both editors above have been blocked before regarding LaRouche articles. DarkAudit 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It also appears in a long footnote in LaRouche Movement, which is wildly out of place in that general article. Once this is kept, I'll remove it from there. There are 3 good cites from 3 different countries (incidentally showing international notability) besides Benton's work.DGG 23:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • • Point of information -- the cites from other countries don't mention Kronberg. They are just template criticism of LaRouche which appears in all the articles that mention LaRouche. --Don't lose that number 14:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with DGG that the material is better handled in an article of its own. The number of articles about the subject appears to indicate the subject's notability. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I count two articles: an obit in the Washington Post, and the little opinion piece in a local paper by Nick Benton. I'm not convinced that this is enough to establish notability. --NathanDW 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Kronberg article should be maintained because it's newsworthy--and future articles on the topic are forthcoming in other venues; reporter Avi Klein is writing an article for Washington Monthly. The second editor may be offended by its presence, but that is hardly a reason to delete it, nor is the first editor's assertion that the article exists only to attack LaRouche. Furthermore, what Dennis King did or didn't think about Kronberg or Benton is irrelevant to the merit of the Kronberg entry. Hexham 07:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • • Point of information, in response to the previous--In fact, the article that appeared in the Jewish Chronicle in Britain was precisely and entirely about Ken Kronberg's death, with a number of details. His name was all over it. This article can be seen at the Justice for Jeremiah website (the Duggan website)--it is not available directly from the Jewish Chronicle except to subscribers.Hexham 18:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Just out of curiosity, why are you using a spoofed username? --NathanDW 01:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is clearly newsworthy and the retention of a biographical entry regarding this political activist and the events that led up to his death is in keeping with the encyclopaedic mission of Wikipedia. 81.145.240.103 12:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 13:11 18 May 2007 (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.