Deletion of Kenneth Kronberg (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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 ; merge to another article, e.g. LaRouche movement
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

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 . 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 SCANDAL
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTSCANDAL)

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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:WIKILAWYERING)