Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luigi Capozzi


 * 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. I am closing this early per WP:SNOW, and because there are obvious BLP problems here. Only person interested in and arguing for inclusion is the author. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Luigi Capozzi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of the article lacks notability to have their own page Contaldo80 (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Possible merge into Crime in Vatican City and Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church. This one is tricky, especially given BLP. Arrests for drug-taking aren't normally notable, but WP:CRIME says unusual execution of a crime might be and recommends merging into another article. In this case, Crime in Vatican City would be the obvious fit. The article also talk about same-sex orgies, which are not crimes in Vatican City, but are serious offences under canon law, which is significant in a hierocracy. I would tentatively suggest that, since the RC disciplinary process resembles a criminal trial, we should treat the scandals using the same principles as WP:CRIME and merge them into Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church. But the sources I read in English don't give the name of the suspect for either the crime or the scandal, which fails WP:BLP. Do the Italian sources actually link Fr Capozzi to either incident?? Matt's talk 13:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Italian sources do name him and make the link. I thought adding the material into Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church might be an option too. My only reservation is that the article doesn't really list every Catholic cleric who is gay - for obvious reasons. And so it might look odd about why we're particularly focusing on one individual (the media reporting is, in any case, somewhat salacious). Contaldo80 (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming that the article is about the right man, which is so important. On your second point, it's not called List of Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church (HCCC), so we're not aiming for completeness, but for explanation. On the salaciousness of the media reporting: I am opposed to the current form of WP:NOTCENSORED, but it's policy and so we have to abide by it. I assume that their reporting is driven by the perceived exceptional hypocrisy of flouting the ethics of an ethics-teaching organization in their own HQ. I agree it's odd, even unfair, to focus on one individual, but that choice was made by the Italian and Catholic press, not us.  has rightly pointed out that we need to see whether there is further ongoing coverage. If so, adding Fr Capozzi to the HCCC section on "Notable gay Catholic priests" might give readers a particularly clear case of such hypocrisy and how the RC leadership, and the press, respond to it. That does not technically flout WP:BLPCRIME, though as I have said, it is analogous to a crime within the RC system. Although I'm still minded to merge, moving to draft would be better than outright deletion (six months in draft ought to make things clearer). Matt's talk 23:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The concern I have with draftifying is that if it isn't notable, we'd have a possible BLP violation sitting around in draft space, which is non-ideal. I've asked BLPN to weigh in on the article content. The likely best outcome here is for the author to save an off-wiki copy and consider recreation in 6 months or more if he is still receiving coverage beyond just trial updates. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME. Being the secretary to a bishop is not notable unless they are also a bishop. The scandal is new, so we have no evidence that it will be notable past the current month or two. A gay priest who uses drugs isn't anything particularly noteworthy, and we should also remember that he is a living person: by our policies unless this crime is shown to have lasting impact, we don't make their number one result in Google be Wikipedia discussing the uneventful lowest point in their lives. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep notable subject and topic was covered in international news media across the world. This case is somewhat anomalous, because of the unusual nature of the crime (ie - it taking place in the Vatican City), which is probably why it got media attention. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Short spurts of media coverage for a crime, even if international, are not enough to meet the notability guideline per WP:CRIME. Since the subject is also a a living person, we need to be exceptionally cautious about how we apply the standards of coverage here. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete smacks of WP:RECENTISM. I can't imagine this to be of any notable importance in a few months. Maineartists (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The article seems deliberately salacious and the individual has no notability beyond the fact he was caught with drugs (fairly commonplace). As per BLP also question about whether individual self-identifies as gay to warrant references to being involved in a "homosexual orgy". We need to be very careful here.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , your nomination counts as a !vote. We typically don't have noms with bolder deletes. It would be best in this case to strike the delete and change it to "comment." TonyBallioni (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry - thanks! Contaldo80 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, include all the explanatory information.
 * Delete I agree with it should be deleted per WP:CRIME. I have removed the sourced information about the scandal with alleged criminal implications from the article following WP:BLPCRIME:
 * The priest is not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN and is only known for the event itself. Without the removed information there is nothing left in the article to justify its inclusion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:BLPCRIME seems strong here as a reason. The subject is not of "high rank" or in any aspect of sufficient notability even to be named in related articles. Collect (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG let alone WP:BLPCRIME Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is necessary to look at this version to see what this is about. Some one has (properly) removed all detail about the scandal as unproved BLP matter.  However without that the article merely refers to a thoroughly NN Vatican cleric.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2017 (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.