Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Rosatti (2nd nomination)


 * 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. While an argument can be put forward that there are enough sources mentioning John Rosatti that he meets our notability guidelines even without the organized crime speculations, that notability is not sufficent to place Wikipedia and the subject under risk of poorly introduced speculation. Under WP:BLP we need to very careful and sure of controversial topics. Will WP:SALT as requested.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

John Rosatti
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

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)
 * Keep: (change position) with the RS which clearly establish the crime links. I am having a very hard time assuming good faith with editor Off2riorob who has yet to post any convincing argumensts as to why VV, the Palm Beach Post and the Philadelphia Daily News are not RS. Likewise with User:X!, who posts mysterious comments allegedly from the artcile subject.  Let the subject post here, I feel that no weight should be given to hearsay comments. As to the nominator's comment "but consensus isn't leaning that way" is not correct as a good look at the BLPN discussion will show. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Hearsay"? This is an encyclopedia, not a courtroom.  Durova  391 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To read the explanation of wikipedia salting please see.. SALT . 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)
 * Comment: That POV seems to ignore the fact that newspapers, even the NYT, have to print retractions on a regular basis. Newspapers have printed things later shown to be false. They've been sued for libel and lost. Just saying that a paper is reputable doesn't mean everything they say about a person is correct. The NYT is "respected", but that didn't prevent Jayson Blair from getting fabrications printed. The New Republic and Stephen Glass? Hell, a Pulitzer was given to Janet Cooke for story that was later shown to be a lie. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:29, 8 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 it's hard to give up on 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)
 * Please assume good faith Nomo, I will assure you, although I should not have to, my comment has no attempt to be deliberately misleading in any way and although you question the fact, I can read. This is AFD not the place to dispute the reliability of sources. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That last point makes no sense to me. The reliability of the Voice was central to the BLP discussion, which is central to the deletion rationale. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This AFD stands alone, if people still have issues as regards the disputed content then this should be discussed at relevant locations. Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should explain why you do not find the multiple sources reliable at BLPN then Jezhotwells (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete As per nominator, simply not notable (enough). --80.192.1.168 (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to closing admin - The subject of the article in question has requested that in the case that this article is deleted, it be protected from recreation. ( X! ·  talk )  · @043  · 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless there is an OTRS number associated with this request, X's comment here should be duly ignored. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm simply notifying the admin of the fact - I'm not supporting or opposing the protection of the article. ( X! ·  talk )  · @057  · 00:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not a fact, it is a comment from you that alleges that you have communication from the article subject. It does raise the issue that you may have a WP:COI with this, however. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, restore deleted content With reliable sources mentioning organized crime links and criminal history. Marokwitz (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Without the recently added and removed criminal accusations and rumours of his being a big mob boss, which were imo poorly sourced comments which turned the article into an attack page, without this accusatory titillation the subject is not notable as a buisnessman. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per nom. WP:NPF applies here, and it is doubtful whether the sources are good and frequent enough to justify inclusion of the allegations in this BLP. Yet if the article exists, it will always attract this content (see article history). Given the subject's marginal notability, and considering the possibility of harm to him, having the article and policing it to make sure it is at all times "written conservatively", as required by WP:BLP, is just not worth our while. We should review the situation if more significant sources appear, e.g. mention of the allegations in several top-quality papers like the NYT. -- JN 466  18:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly why do you think that a newsweekly which had won three Pulitzer Prizes wouldn't be "top-quality"? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the operative term is "several" in this case, not "top-quality."--otherlleft 20:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if that's the issue, the Philadelphia Daily News has two Pulitzers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors have several times presented the subject's being a member of an organised-crime family as an established fact in the article . Only one source, William Bastone, who has since left the Village Voice and now runs TheSmokingGun.com, has presented it as such. The other sources (and there are only two or three) mention it as an (attributed) allegation. Editors also cited court records directly to suggest the subject had asked for someone to be murdered. Direct citation of such primary sources, if they have not first been published by a secondary source, is a violation of WP:NPF, the text of which I'll reproduce here with the relevant passages marked in bold italics:
 * On the subject of court records in BLPs, also cf. WP:WELLKNOWN. I have no confidence that this article, if retained, has any chance now of a BLP-compliant existence in our project. The claims are out there on the web for those interested in them. Given the subject's marginal notability, we have more to lose than to gain by having an article on him. Lastly, the editors who are insistent on having these allegations in Wikipedia should reflect on the fact that if they had included them in a responsible, BLP-compliant manner in the first place, i.e. as attributed allegations, they might well have prevented this AfD. -- JN 466  23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Other sources, the Palm Beach Post, Philadelphia Daily News, Village Voice, UPI, were introduced to support the allegations, but they were then removed by User:Crackofdawn and X!, so the above assertation is plainly untrue as a reading of the article history will show. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jezhotwells, those are the other two or three sources I was referring to above, and they are represented in the diffs I posted. As far as I could see when I researched these secondary sources, they all attributed the allegation to someone: either to Bastone in the Village Voice, or to unnamed law enforcement officials. None except Bastone presented it as an unattributed fact. The subject has never been charged with respect to these allegations, and they have never been tested in court. BLP policy, quoted above, is clear: if damaging allegations are represented at all, the article should "state that the sources make certain 'allegations', with the Wikipedia article taking no position on their truth." -- JN 466  09:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those "court records" aren't primary sources. The testimony would be the primary source. The appeals court review of testimony is a secondary source. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a verbatim quote from WP:BLP: "Exercise great care in using primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." If you want to work in controversial BLPs, it would really make sense to read up on BLP policy. -- JN 466  00:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're simply wrong here. You've reached the point of arguing that all "public documents" are primary sources, and can't be used as sources, and that all court documents are primary sources, and can't be used as sources. From WP:SECONDARY: Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources write about primary sources, often making analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about them. And that's exactly what we have here, an appeals court document reviewing primary source material (the trail transcript/record), therefore a secondary source. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're so caught up in truth that you can't admit that you're wrong. You keep citing a supposed court document that lists this man as having ties with the mob?  Link to it specifically, but while you do this, make sure that you follow WP:V to the letter.  So far, we have had a single person make claims(Bas) and present them as facts, without citing any source that is verifiable.  We then have had several other sources cite Bas, but, guess what, they do not state what he has said as fact, but an allegation.  Huge difference there.  You're arguing to include poorly sourced material, in clear violation of WP:BLP.  A single source stated it as fact, and the other sources stated it as what it was: an allegation.  If you want to include the material, you can't argue about having it state the allegation as a fact, as you cannot argue that because source B cites source A, source A is right.  You have to read the details, as it is quite clearly source B citing the statements made in source A as what they are: allegations.  Nothing less than allegations, as we are not a rumor mill.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 05:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As the content is clearly controversial, not covered nationally by major publications, and accusatory in nature, mostly unproven allegations that could well be extremely damaging in nature to a living person we clearly need to take care with such content. You can't discuss citations out of context without the content you want to support, this citation appears to be a simple copy of a court record, there is no discussion, no analytic anything, it is a copy of a primary court report and imo unusable. If the article is kept then there are people that dispute the desired additions and people that want to include it, this will be discussed at more relevant places if the article is kept. Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pulitzer-prize winning newspapers aren't "major"; secndary sources are primary, reporting felony/criminal convictions is accusatory, and on and on. The consensus at BLPN went against you. Stop making stuff up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about you stop making stuff up first? The consensus at BLPN did not go against him, 4 editors is not consensus.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 05:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Philadelphia Daily News is a struggling tabloid that has won Pulitzers for its cartoons (1992) and editorial writing (1985). The Village Voice is a free alternative paper; while it is an RS, its reliability is not on a par with that of a national newspaper that people pay money for. Bastone is known for tabloid-style reporting. His writing in the Village Voice is presently the only source that states as an unattributed fact that the subject is a member of a crime family. The other sources say it is said or alleged, and they say who says or alleges it. Our article, on the other hand, followed Bastone in making a bald statement of fact, and that is a problem per WP:NPF. So is accessing court records that have not previously been referenced in a secondary source, such as a newspaper or book reporting on the trial; particularly as the specific allegation quoted was not what the case was about, and the BLP subject has never been indicted, as far as I can tell, in relation to this allegation. The convictions you refer to are outcomes of court actions mentioned in newspapers; those aspects seem less of a BLP problem. I have no agenda here except BLP, which applies to everyone, regardless of their perceived merits or failings. If we can't get the article of a marginally notable person right, then it should go. -- JN 466  17:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The standard for measuring the reliability of the Village Voice here should be the quality and reputation at the time the relevant material was published, 20 10 years ago, when it was a nationally distributed newsweekly of great repute. One might as well argue that the work of noted scientist X is unreliable because the individual has since fallen victim to dementia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Village Voice article is from 1998, the Philadelphia News one from 2004. -- JN 466  18:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your critique of past versions, especially in re making bald assertions, and if this is kept I will contribute to "getting it right". Also on the court documents issue (I don't like the policy, but I agree that you are reading it correctly).  I think you can count on similar cooperation from other editors here, and so I am more optimistic about "getting it right".  I too have no agenda here except BLP, and my only concern is that certain editors (not you) are misusing it.  In any event, I continue to think he is notable and am happy to contribute towards addressing other concerns.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- JN 466  18:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No it didn't. We will see how it goes. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Canvassing closing nominator please note, Jayen466 contacted two editors with a non-neutral messages "I have some BLP concerns; the subject is of marginal notability", "another one of those problem BLPs...Apparently, the subject has asked for it to be salted". This two editors have never been involved in this article before. Ikip 18:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfectly true. One of the two users is Cool Hand Luke, a sitting arbitrator, who surely can think for himself, and the other, Durova, has let it be known that she has an interest in BLPs of this type. If you knew our history, you would also know that Durova and I have often disagreed, so I think it is unlikely she would do me any personal favours here. -- JN 466  18:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Contacting a couple of experienced editors in the BLP field is not even close to canvassing. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My position on BLP is fairly well known. Unfortunately this comes at a particularly busy time regarding other commitments, so a quick question here: has the subject of this biography requested deletion?  Durova  391 22:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject has, we are advised, made such a request requested that it be salted (but not specifically deleted) vis-a-vis one of the editors participating in this debate, but not by any formal, verifiable means. I'm not familiar with how such a request is made offhand, but it would probably be appreciated by the subject if the relevant link were posted.--otherlleft 23:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * User:X! asserts that the subject has contacted them off-wiki, with such a request. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Without the mafia sources, this article does not seem to be notable (hence the previous deletion). The crime sources do not seem to be BLP-worthy; the article seems to have overstated what sources have actually said about the subject. I'm particularly disturbed that the article cited the criminal appeal of third parties in order to implicate this individual in a crime he was apparently never even charged with. For future reference: criminal prosecutors and defendants often construct alternative and motives and theories for crimes, and courts must often evaluate these theories in discussing a case on appeal. That does not mean the theories have any basis in fact&mdash;juries do not typically return verdicts about background information like this. They only find whether defendants (not third parties) are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore third-party background individuals should not be listed as mobsters in an online encyclopedia. I would also support salting with a requirement to DRV before re-creation. Cool Hand Luke 00:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: court documents would be primary sources when they are actually about the individual. For example, the criminal appeal of Louis Malpeso (cited here) is a primary source about Louis Malpeso. You could write "Malpeso's appeal was denied.[cite]" They are not even primary sources for this subject. The facts about John Rosatti were not determined by a judge or jury. They are therefore dangerously irrelevant. Discussion of background information from third partys' cases should be given no WEIGHT because they are unpublished in the editorial sense. Cool Hand Luke 00:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the subject's request. X! is a trustworthy Wikipedian so I'll accept that.  Durova  391 02:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide substantiation of a request from the subject. I am not at all convinced that such a request has been made. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, personal opinions on editors' trustworthiness and off wiki converstations have no place here.  Either the subject has emailed the OTRS team or they have not. Any thing else is hearsay. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When people begin citing court procedure on hearsay as if it applied to encyclopedia deletion discussions, something has gone off track. Articles have been deleted by this rationale without any formal requirement to email OTRS. This is someone who has had damaging allegations against him published in major newspapers, yet has never been charged or given his day in court.  It doesn't take much to see why he wouldn't want this, and outside our internal workings many people don't understand the OTRS system.  We don't turn people away because they fail to fill out form 318A in triplicate.  Durova  391 17:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying (among other things) that you can't substantiate the claim that he has requested deletion? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am saying that you are attempting to erect new standards for verification that never previously existed, when no reasonable grounds exist to doubt the desire of the subject. Has there been any BLP subject outside the field of professional rap music who relished being the subject of allegations of organized crime ties?  Durova  391 20:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The previous article was deleted as non-notable. The current article does not establish any greater notability than the deleted article. (Example: two sources are now cited for the supposedly huge donation by the subject to a school, but neither source verifies the claim; they simply establish that the subject was one among many donors to the school.) The only real notability of the subject is the variously sourced claims that he is a member of an organized crime family. However, the author of the article strenuously objects to inclusion of that information in the article. Without it, the subject is simply another retired business person among tens of thousands of other retired business people, not notable in any way, and the article is up for speedy deletion as a reposting without susbtantial improvement of a previously deleted article. --MelanieN (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN
 * Additional comment Thanks to Nomoskedasticity for solid reporting here. It's clear that the sources establishing his notability as a figure in organized crime are far more numerous, and far more important, than the sources establishing his notability as a benign public figure (which amount to a couple of mentions in Yachting magazine). However, since all sources use some variant of "alleged" in describing his crime connection, the information is probably not solid enough to provide the basis for a Wikipedia article. Thus, my vote that the subject should be deleted as non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN
 * One more comment: The infobox lists "world's fastest yacht" as what he is "known for". But that is questionable. In a Google search for "world's fastest yacht," Rosatti is not mentioned - at least not in the first two pages of ghits. A boat built by his company gets two mentions, or rather the same mention twice, but it does not name Rosatti. Further evidence of his lack of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN


 * additional sources, not (as far as I can tell) previously used in this article, that allege ties between Rosatti and the Colombo crime family:, , , and one available only via Nexis: Jonathan Nelson, "Christensen, New Zealand firm OK deal", The Columbian (Vancouver WA), February 14, 2008. Are we really going to continue to pretend that there are insufficient sources to write (in a measured, proper way) about this in an article on Rosatti?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see the Nexis source, but if it's not publicly accessible we should probably invoke WP:IAR and not include it in this BLP case unless it's unequivocal. I had looked over some of your other suggestions before nominating this, and honestly I think they fall short.  If we wrote articles here with phrases like "authorities claim he has organized crime ties," "allegedl crime boss," and so on they'd be branded weasel words, and rightly so.  The additional Village Voice article simply references the article that is being so hotly debated, so for that it comes down to whether an article that is written by a reliable source, but only uses sources we at Wikipedia would deem unreliable (like witness statements before trial) can be considered.  Other than that, we have established that he paid a really big fine.  The nature of organized crime is such that it's difficult to get a conviction for it, and labeling someone with it prior to a conviction can be a very big deal.
 * Notability can be established by as little as one source, if it covers the subject with sufficient depth. There is only one source - the Bastone Village Voice article - which really covers the subject and implicates him with organized crime, rather than saying that it's a rumor or allegation.  I think the question really is whether or not that single source covers the subject in sufficient depth to establish notability.--otherlleft 15:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it were an in-depth article in the New York Times, this might be a more difficult decision; but an article by a tabloid journalist, printed in a free tabloid, does not meet the standard of WP:NPF, which demands corroboration by "multiple highly reliable sources". The Village Voice is not highly reliable (see opinion at RSN). -- JN 466  16:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted the extract of of the Columbian reference at BLPN, but as you missed it, here is the full text: Nelson, Jonathan (14 February 2008). "Yachts built by Vancouver-based Christensen Shipyards Ltd. set sail. The downturn in the U.S. economy has had little impact on the luxury-boat industry, a Christensen official said. Christensen Shipyards Ltd. renowned for its composite hull yachts, has hired a New Zealand luxury boatmaker to engineer its newest generation of ships to be built at a new manufacturing plant in Tennessee. Joe Foggia, Christensen president and chief operating officer, considers High Modulus to be the best company in the world to design and engineer the hull and chemical makeup of the composite material to be used on the newest line of Christensen yachts, which will stretch from 165 feet to 225 feet in length and cost up to $80 million. Christensen will be working with High Modulus' office in Hamble, England. High Modulus produces several sailing and power boats and earned its reputation in working with composite material in the 1980s when it designed New Zealand's sailing boat that raced in the America's Cup. The partnership is a major step in Christensen's efforts to increase its European presence. The first push east came in 2006 when it cemented plans to build a $20 million complex in Vonore, Tenn., a hotbed of boatmakers 30 miles from Knoxville. The plant sits on 55 acres with 2,000 feet of waterfront access to a deep water lake that feeds into the Tennessee River. Foggia said work on the building is expected to end this month. It will take the rest of the year to build the tooling and molds needed for the new yachts. High Modulus' expertise is especially needed since the larger boats are regulated differently than the ships built in Vancouver. The Vancouver-built yachts weigh less than 500 gross tons and require fire retardation construction to be focused on the engine compartment, Foggia said. The Tennessee-built vessels will exceed that weight benchmark and require fire retardation design for the entire ship. The interiors of the bigger yachts will also increase. A 160-foot yacht has about 6,500 square feet of interior space. A 190-foot yacht has 13,000 square feet. Christensen already has an order for the first yacht to come from Tennessee. John Rosatti, who owns two Christensen yachts, wants a 186-foot model that is expected to be completed by 2011. Rosatti is a multimillionaire who owns several car dealerships on the East Coast, and is also known for his past ties to the Colombo Mafia family of New York. Rosatti was also a previous co-owner of Millennium Super Yachts. Foggia said Christensen, which employs 450 people at its Vancouver facilities, is fielding numerous calls about the bigger yachts, but said the company won't actively market the vessels until the Tennessee plant is operational. Foggia expects 100 to 150 people to be working at the facility within the next 18 months and up to 450 people within five years. Despite sagging consumer confidence and an economy some suspect is in the midst of a recession, Christensen operates in an industry that is somewhat bulletproof. Its Vancouver plant builds ships that top out in size at 157 feet long. Foggia said companies that produce ships bigger than 130 feet long experience little trouble in attracting buyers. Those well-heeled consumers are flocking to Miami this week for the 20th annual Miami Yacht & Brokerage Show. Foggia, who is in the south Florida city, said Christensen has three of its yachts on display. The show is the ideal place for people to see the interior of the company's yachts and to get a sense of the craftsmanship. Foggia said that despite new hull engineering and slight alteration in styling, there will be no mistaking that the ships produced in Tennessee are Christensen yachts." Sorry, I forgot to sign this earlier.  I underlined the interesting statement which is not qualified by the wrod alleged or similar. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * additional sources: This is copied from the BLP discussion (originally posted by user:Jezhotwells for convenience: Marokwitz (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep   These are large businesses with a major presence. He's a significant businessman, both with respect to automobiles and boats.  The place  discuss the content is at the BLP noticeboard, but my view is that if he is in fact a convicted felon for crimes involving stealing automobiles, that part at least can be mentioned. The original version of the article was unfairly negative, the present one hides sourced negative information.  The principle of deleting an article because there is weakly sourced negative information that could be added is unreasonable and unencyclopedic. We have dealt successfully with much more difficult problems of the sort.      DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that material on the two attested and reported convictions (punished by five years' and one year's probation respectively, according to sources cited) could be included, and agree that the present article hides this information. However, the way you have characterised the principle some editors seek to apply here does not quite hit the mark. WP:HARM is an essay today, but BLP policy still requires us to consider the possibility of harm to a BLP subject. WP:BLP quotes Jimmy Wales advocating the Wikipedia principle that "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". The harm in this case is not potential, it is actual. If you enter the subject's name in google right now, the second hit is the cached version of our article, stating confidently that the subject presently is a member of a crime family. One of the sources brought forth by those who added this information (underlined above) actually speaks of "past ties"; another, further below, describes organized crime figures demanding that the subject aid them in the perpetration of crimes, and the subject preferring to pay them money rather than doing so. For all I know, that may have been the only viable choice for him under the circumstances.
 * Comment: Google's second hit now returns the bowdlerized version of this article - the puff piece without any criminal allegations, but also without anything that makes him notable. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN


 * This article, as originally created, was deprecated as a puff piece, and deleted as such. It is presently an orphan; nothing else in namespace links to it. Given that Wikipedia has already done the subject harm, is currently doing him harm, that we can't ensure that this harm will not recur, and that the notability of the subject is not such that we owe the public an article on him, I still think delete and salt is a decent thing to do. But I respect your view, and accept that you may see the matter differently. -- JN 466  21:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP, WP:N. If the businesses are notable they can have articles of their own. Orderinchaos 20:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletethese stories are all fabricated lies which has caused me to contact johns attorney . If these sources are used as reliable sources then wikipedian editors are supporting slander and defamation of character without proper research Crackofdawn (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, wait a minute here - Crackofdawn, aren't you the original author of the article? Are you now requesting that your article be deleted? --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN
 * NOTE: The above comment by Crackofdawn about "contacting johns attorney" is under discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN


 * Comment: User:Crackofdawn has now been indefinitely blocked by User:Tanthalas39. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Subsequently unblocked per Alison: "Editor has now unequivocally retracted their legal threats" Orderinchaos 15:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. --John (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - Non-notable unless allegations are true, and there is no evidence of that, even so, we are not a rumor mill.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Borderline notability, problems with sourcing, and the subject has requested deletion. No brainer.  AniMate   06:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes i want the page deleted and protected Crackofdawn (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per strange attempts to remove reliable sources. Şłџğģő  15:10, 9 January 2010 (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.