Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Carneglia

: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. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

=[[Charles Carneglia]]=

:{{la|Charles Carneglia}} ([{{fullurl:Charles Carneglia|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Carneglia}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

I speedy deleted this as a WP:CSD#G10, and then undeleted ast the subject has numerous hits on Google, so there may be sufficiently non trivial coverage to establish notability. I'd like a consensus on whether the subject meets notability and whether the BLP concern overrides any notability. [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS240US240&q=%22Charles+Carneglia%22&start=900&sa=N There are 300 Google Web hits] that I've not sifted, and [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?num=100&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS240US240&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=%22Charles+Carneglia%22 60 Google News hits.] Cheers, Dloh cierekim 21:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I also submitted this for a G10 speedy but was turned down. If an article is written for the sole purpose of disparaging a living individual, as any article about someone noted for criminal behavior, then it must include a substantial amount of significant references. Anything less becomes a BLP violation and requires immediate deletion. This is not one of those times when WP can wait until proper sourcing is found. This article is a BLP vio for that reason. — User:CactusWriter ^needles 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

: I hope the author will arrive here to make a comment. User:Nanny's Boy has created a few dozen of these articles and a perusal of the user's talk page indicates a substantial problem with attacks and lack of sourcing. These biographies can certainly be notable, but they also require a very careful and neutral approach. The kind of "pulp crime magazine" language currently being used is problematic -- which I believe can also be attributed to poor sourcing. — User:CactusWriter ^needles 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

:Is this a "delete"?? Dloh cierekim 21:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - Delete as a G10. BLP attack page without proper sourcing. — User:CactusWriter ^needles 21:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

::I blanked the thing, but y'all can still see what he's talking about in the prior versions. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 22:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete per CactusWriter. As this article shows, Nanny's Boy shows no regard for Wikipedia policy on sourcing, frmatting or article quality. Ground Zero | t 22:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep Meets the blp requirements, though some rewriting to decrease the sensationalistic aspect is needed. Two perfectly good sources. Major organized crime figures are notable even outside of the tabloid world. Or we could wait for conviction. There is no policy based reason for removing this article. However, the author should get some advice for how to do this sort of article in a more suitable manner. We don't delete if we can edit, and that applies even in cases like this. How to deal with the author if no cooperation forthcoming? ? Probably blank that version and rewrite and protect. DGG (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

::Reply to Groundzero The subject is the notability of the article vs the BLP concern. The ability or knowledge of the article creator is not really germane. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 02:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

:::I understand your point, but the problem is that NannyBoy is going around creating articles that simply donot meet any standard for a Wikipedia article. Is it the responsibility of otehr editors to raise these scraps to an acceptable level, or should the articles simply be removed until someone is interested in writing a proper encyclopedia article? NannyBoy ignores any attempts to coach him into writing an acceptable piece. Ground Zero | t 03:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. The blatant BLP violations were taken out but WP:BLP is still a problem. This is a premature at best bio of an alleged mid-level mobster. Notability is marginal if it is established at all. The alleged criminal acts might be notable but they are yet to be proven. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment our general annoyance with a n editor should not interfere with the judgment of whether this particular article can be edited to meet the requirements. AfD is not for user conduct issues. DGG (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2009 (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.