Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Papagni


 * 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 Delete. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Frank Papagni

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm tempted to speedy this as an "unsourced or badly sourced negative bio" per WP:BLP, but let's see what others think. We have a lot of these articles, so it would be good to form a view. Docg 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The sole source is someone's personal research - reliability unknown. Can we really call someone a criminal based on this per WP:BLP
 * Even the sourcing is improved, he's (allegedly) a mobster and convicted lowlife, but does that make him notable per WP:BIO?


 * Delete as a poorly-sourced negative biography. It looks to me as if someone is going through the website or a book and creating a directory-style article on each named person. Without independent sourcing (and this is just one reporter's column, apparently) we can't call these anything other than poorly sources negative WP:BLPs, which is an unambiguous delete. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm uncomfortable with biographies alleging that certain people are criminals... based on the sayings of one single unofficial Web site. David.Monniaux (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments: 1. If Papagni has been convicted of a crime and is serving prison time for it, then to say he is a criminal is not merely an "allegation". 2. Ganglandnews.com is run by mob expert Jerry Capeci and has been described by the New York Times as an "authoritative Mafia Web site". (source: Michael Brick, "'80s Plot to Hit Giuliani? Mob Experts Doubt It", New York Times, 26 October 2007) Mike R (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per BLP, and also RS, as not a peer reviewed or edited site - a blog news feed by a reliable, knowledgeable columnist is still unfortunately a blog news feed. Orderinchaos 15:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete only reliable sources indicate same name syndrome of a US Attorney TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 15:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * weak keep is a notable ganster. Contrary to what Orderinchaos claims the "blog" in question is run by a renowkned expert in the area. Just because something is called a blog does not make it a blog in the sense of being unreliable. That's why for example the New York Times has various "blogs" that are reliable sources. That's exactly what we have here. I'm not completely convinced the sources in question meet BIO so keep is only week. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:49, 9 April 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.