| Revision as of 18:21, 2 January 2010 editOff2riorob (talk | contribs)80,325 editsm →John Rosatti← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:30, 2 January 2010 edit undoNomoskedasticity (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,768 edits →John Rosatti: reading abilityNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Strong keep, restore deleted content'''. This AFD, like the bowdlerization of the underlying article, is based on the entirely false notion that the ], a newpaper which won, inter alia, three Pulitzer Prizes and was widely respected for its investigative journalism, particularly regarding corruption and organized crime in New York, is somehow an unreliable source. That the quality of its journalism has declined over the last few years after corporate meddling doesn't magically render its previous decades of high-quality work worthless. ] (]) 17:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | *'''Strong keep, restore deleted content'''. This AFD, like the bowdlerization of the underlying article, is based on the entirely false notion that the ], a newpaper which won, inter alia, three Pulitzer Prizes and was widely respected for its investigative journalism, particularly regarding corruption and organized crime in New York, is somehow an unreliable source. That the quality of its journalism has declined over the last few years after corporate meddling doesn't magically render its previous decades of high-quality work worthless. ] (]) 17:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :That is not the case at all, the fact that controversial content which has been cited to a single source and has been disputed is not a reflection on the overall reliability of the source but a isolated reflection on the single situation as regards specific controversial content. ] (]) 18:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | :That is not the case at all, the fact that controversial content which has been cited to a single source and has been disputed is not a reflection on the overall reliability of the source but a isolated reflection on the single situation as regards specific controversial content. ] (]) 18:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::This comment is either deliberately misleading or the product of faulty reading ability. I'd like to think it's the latter, but given that the additional sources supporting the contention in question appear in the first screen of the BLPN discussion leads me to the former. There are multiple reliable sources asserting a connection between Rosatti and the crime family. Why are people having a difficult time acknowledging this? ] (]) 18:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:30, 2 January 2010
John Rosatti
AfDs for this article:- John Rosatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is currently the subject of a BLP discussion here, in which some editors strongly believe that the sources tying the subject to organized crime are insufficient and should not be included. Sans that portion of the subject's life, the article fails notability, because it's then just about a car salesman who owns a fast boat. In the interest of protecting the subject from these ongoing disputes, I recommend salting the entry until such time as there are sufficient, undisputed sources establishing his notability. --otherlleft 15:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and salt as per nominator. The subject is not notable, a car dealer who owns a a fast boat. The BLP discussion concerns allegations of the subject's links to organised crime. Statements about this side of subject's life have been removed from the article, along with citations. If left in they would perhaps establish some sort of notoriety or notability but at present there is only ownership of a car dealership and a boat and donations to a school. The article's creator User:Crackofdawn claims a close association with the subject and is clearly only interested in a puff piece. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- To read the explanation of wikipedia salting please see.. Misplaced Pages:SALT#Creation protection . Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, with restoration of the crime family association passages. That issue was supported by perfectly respectable sources (newspapers in Philadelphia and Palm Beach, in addition to the Village Voice). This AfD has been mounted with a false premise; Rosatti meets WP:BIO and it is disingenuous to delete the portions of the article that establish notability and then to claim that he is not notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It wasn't mounted with a false premise - I fully support including the crime family sources, but consensus isn't leaning that way. My premise is that if the sources can't be included, he's not notable.--otherlleft 17:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep, restore deleted content. This AFD, like the bowdlerization of the underlying article, is based on the entirely false notion that the Village Voice, a newpaper which won, inter alia, three Pulitzer Prizes and was widely respected for its investigative journalism, particularly regarding corruption and organized crime in New York, is somehow an unreliable source. That the quality of its journalism has declined over the last few years after corporate meddling doesn't magically render its previous decades of high-quality work worthless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is not the case at all, the fact that controversial content which has been cited to a single source and has been disputed is not a reflection on the overall reliability of the source but a isolated reflection on the single situation as regards specific controversial content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- This comment is either deliberately misleading or the product of faulty reading ability. I'd like to think it's the latter, but given that the additional sources supporting the contention in question appear in the first screen of the BLPN discussion leads me to the former. There are multiple reliable sources asserting a connection between Rosatti and the crime family. Why are people having a difficult time acknowledging this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)