Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank LaGrotta


 * 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- content issues should be worked out on the talk page. Friday (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Frank LaGrotta

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominating for deletion -- article is too off balance for a bio, and suffers from undue weight b/c of the indictment section which takes 50% of the article. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * keep The subject is a former State Representative in Pennsylvania who has been indicted in a corruption investigation., . He is also named in a civil suit .  Information in the article is factual and drawn from sources, no apparent POV.  Montco (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't see POV in a BLP where an indictment takes up 50% of the article?--Jkp212 (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparing this no-name guy to Richard Nixon is faulty. It's not appropriate to have a BLP of a little known individual be comprised of 50% indictment. If you want an article about that event, then create it, but it should not dominate this man's bio. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Being "off balance" is not a valid reason for deletion, and I don't see any POV issue here in any case. He was a state official, which easily satisfies WP:BIO. What next? Should we delete Richard Nixon because of all that Watergate business? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, being "off balance" certainly IS a reason for deletion of a BLP, if there is otherwise no interest in reporting any aspect of this person's life other than the charges. This is a WP:BLP -- read up, please. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - As has been stated, concern of bias is not a deletion reason. The article might need improvement, but he clearly meets notability as a state representative. matt91486 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is neutral, factual, and fully sourced. The individual is doubtless notable due to his service in the Pennsyvlannia legislature, including leadership positions, and for the political scandal that has received considerable attention in the local and national press. "Weight" issues are not a reason to delete an article. If weight is a problem then the nominator is free to add more info to improve the balance. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am sensitive to the WP:BLP concerns mentioned, and unlike some editors, I would be willing to consider deletion on undue weight grounds in an extreme case. This, however, is not one. To me, the weight issue not as troubling because the allegations (misuse of one's public position) are related to the very thing that makes the subject notable (status as an elected official/political appointee). When you have this close nexus between the source of notability and the source of the negative information, it seems to me that it is fair to make mention of the negative information. As I write this, the article has 2 sentences about the indictment. In light of the fact that the information has been widely reported elsewhere, this does not strike me as giving the matter undue weight.  Xymmax (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per WP:BIO, which states that elected state-level officials are inherently notable. I'd support the addition of some information about his record of legislative accomplishments (if any) to provide appropriate weight, but deletion isn't going to help anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep tag, and expand. There is plenty of material that can be used to expand the article. As it stands it is unbalanced and in violation of WP:UNDUE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Granted, this article needs to be expanded (something I have been trying to do), but deleting it is unreasonable. An elected official indicted for corruption is inherently notable. It is also verifiable; it is a fact (and there are multiple sourced) that show he was indicted. As far as undue burden is concerned, add more information about his bio or his term in office before he was indicted. --RedShiftPA (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets basic criteria of WP:BIO, negative information is sourced meeting WP:BLP. Undue weight is an issue for editing and talk pages, not a rationale for deletion. When the negative information amounts to two complete sentences, "undue weight" is hard to swallow anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 22:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  01:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  01:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The history of this article shows clearly and unambiguously that it was created for the single purpose of reporting the charges. This is clearly not any kind of BLP. The editor who created this article did not include any information on this individual's public record other than the charges, and since that is the only reason this article is here, and there is apparently no interest in expanding this article to provide balance, then it should be deleted. There is NO context around his political career, NO context around the charges, and this article has absolutely NO value as a "biography" other than as a platform for putting the "news" out there. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. I have learned NOTHING about this living person other than he is a democrat and that he is up on charges. This is a clear deletion candidate. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment In reference to the above, it truly does not matter what was the original author's intent (and I don't mean to question User:Nyttend's motives). Wikipedia is a collaborative project - we weed out problems over time, and improve the articles that are here. If this article does not violate our core policies, but you perceive defects in it, then keep it and allow this process to take place. Add additional appropriate information, or remove inappropriate/unsourced information, but don't delete an article because you disagree with the original author's perceived intent. (For clarity's sake, this comment was added after Nyttend's below.) Xymmax (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As the author, I would like to note: I don't generally work with biographical articles, although sometimes I'll do it when a source appears in front of me. That was the reason for creating this article: I read the article in the local paper (the Beaver County Times) about his indictment, and seeing that he was a former state legislator, I knew that he was notable and wrote an article that used everything that I had before me.  I'm an Ohio native who has never really "lived" in Pennsylvania, and I'm not a political science student — I had never heard of the guy before reading the article, and don't exactly know where to find more.  There's no reason to delete the article on the aforementioned grounds — I would write a similar article on any other former state legislator if I found such information.  I'd appreciate it if motives were not assigned to me incorrectly.  Nyttend (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Need a professional opinion on this
My sincerest apologies to Nyttend. This editor appears to have an inpeccable history here on Wikipedia and I clearly failed to assume good faith on his part in characterizing the editor rather than the effect of the edit. I nonetheless think this article stumbles into a very dangerous area and I am temporarily removing all references to the charges according to WP:BLP, specifically "Do no harm", for reasons I will place on the talk page shortly. Meanwhile, please do not restore any material related to the charges until we reach agreement here or get a professional opinion from a BLP reviewer.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a matter for the article talk page, not the AFD discussion. Friday (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've initiated discussion there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2008 (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.