Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 10: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:37, 16 November 2006

< November 9	November 11 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

10 November 2006

Joseph Todaro, Sr.

Joseph Todaro, Sr. was under consideration for deletion when User:Zoe deleted it as "an apparent serious violation of WP:BLP". User:Coredesat then closed the discussion. At that stage it was running 100% in favour of keeping, excluding only the nominator who's original concern about notability had, I suggest, been addressed.

Zoe's main concern appears to be that the page could give the reader the impression that Joseph Todaro is a gangster. A quick google search shows plenty of sites that support the claim that Joseph Todaro is a gangster, eg http://www.americanmafia.com/Mob_Leaders/Mob_Leaders_2.html , http://www.laborers.org/Fino_Gow_4-18-96.htm and http://www.thelaborers.net/trijustice/RICOnewest.htm but also other pages on Wikipedia, eg List of Italian American mobsters and List of famous mafiosi by city.

There are problems with the article but, I suggest, not to the extent that it should have been deleted. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My closure of the AfD was a procedural move since the article had already been deleted. No opinion from me. --Core des at 06:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Google cache. "Keep and cleanup" is really not an argument in WP:BLP articles. If there are reliable sources, no, let me rephrase this, RELIABLE SOURCES confirming what the article said recreation shouldn't be an issue, but given the paucity of resources and overall crappiness of the article, starting from scratch seems like the better solution. ~ trialsanderrors 07:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion with no prejudice against recreation if reliable sources can be found per Trialsanderror. JoshuaZ 07:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion without prejudice per trialsanderrors and Joshua. WP:BLP doesn't give us room to "keep and cleanup" such an article which makes serious allegations against numerous people. In addition, this article is extremely unencylopedic and needs to be rewritten anyway. I agree with Trialsanderror's view that starting from scratch seems like the best solution.Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Even if we had rewritten the article we'd have had to delete the history per WP:BLP. Feel free to try again, without the hatchet, but check WP:MOS first as this read more like a newspaper expose than an encyclopaedia article. Guy 08:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have created a temporary subpage at Joseph Todaro, Sr./temp to be considered for recreation. This version is substantially cut down, however it does include relable references supporting Todaro's involvement in organized crime. Also, regarding the original deletion review, I believe there was also some concern regarding copyright issues although I'm not sure if that was discussed. My best guess would be the former article largely based off the La Nova Pizzeria official website. MadMax 21:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
-====[[AMV Hell]]====
-:{{la-admin|AMV Hell}}, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMV Hell]]
-I have several concerns over this deletion.
-# [[User:Jaranda]], the admin that deleted/protected the article, is no longer a member of Wikipedia.  (Please see the statement on his/her [[User:Jaranda|user page]].)
-# The article is about a series of movies/videos, similar to many internet phenomenon, and therefore is as deserving of an article as any other internet phenomenon or parody video.
-# Lastly, and this may be irrelevant here but should be considered, there is no record (that I could locate) as to why the article was deleted.  A list of reasons for article deletion would make support for article deletion understood.  Perhaps this should be made a requirement on deleted and protected article pages (to enlighten those that were not part of the debate).
---[[User:Everchanging02|Everchanging02]] 07:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' AfD linked. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 07:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-**'''Comment''' Thank you.  I shall add the link to [[Talk:AMV Hell]].  --[[User:Everchanging02|Everchanging02]] 07:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Endorse deletion''', status of Jaranda is irrelevant, the "some ''foo'' exists therefore this ''foo'' should exist" argument is specious, this was deleted once by [[WP:PROD]] and cone by AfD, article is subjective and makes no provable claim to notability (as well as having no reliable sources). <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 08:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Endorse deletion''' 1. irrelevant, 2. [[User:Trialsanderrors/FEQ|T&E:FEQ]], 3. Proper AfD, even though participation was a bit low. You can always write a new article in user space and present it here for approval, just remember to properly source it to show that it meets [[WP:WEB]]. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 09:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Endorse''' per Trialsanderrors. If someone writes one that even comes close I'll move it in over the deletion protection thing and it can have a proper AfD most likely. But the deleted version... it didn't assert importance or cite any reliable sources. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 14:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[Joseph Todaro, Sr.]]====