Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Fosco

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

Non-notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Guy just happens to be a plaintiff in a civil RICO lawsuit against boss of the Chicago Outfit. The few refs provided are to a Linkedin profile and Mr. Fosco's personal website. Appears to be nothing more than a vanity page.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Too much a COI and just not notable. Propaganda. Parkerparked (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I believe I read in the Wikipedia Deletion Policy article that I should identify that I, Sritchern, am the original author of this article. KTF website is not a personal website, but an online magazine (several authors write for it). The linked article is from a credible 3rd party source (MSNBC). The Civil RICO section is only recently added, and there was never a problem before it was. Joseph Fosco appears to be the first person in the United States to file a Civil RICO complaint against The Outfit. The topic is very relevant when considering the subject of the The Outfit, as Family Secrets just wrapped up sentencing (and rumors are flying about Family Secrets 2). I wonder why PassionoftheDamon, who has authored extensive articles on The Commission and Sammy Gravano, would be so keen to tear it down? Possible COI? Also, Parkerparked has been cited on his user talk page as potentially being a sockpuppet. If these two are the only ones raising objections about the article, I would strenuously suggest it remain an active entry. Sritchern (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

:Comment No COI on my part, the subject just doesn't meet the notability guidelines. If this were a high-profile case with extensive coverage in the media, it might be different. But it's not. As it stands, there's no coverage of Mr. Fosco or his case to speak of, and the references in the article include only a LinkedIn profile, the web site for Mr. Fosco's media company, Fosco's complaint (also posted on Fosco's company's web site), and a reference to an MSNBC article in which Fosco is indirectly quoted in one line ("Director Joseph Fosco says the goal of the organization is to provide counseling for biracial children dealing with emotional problems and questions about identity"), the matter of which is wholly unrelated to his asserted claim to fame: filing a civil lawsuit against the Chicago Outfit. At the end of the day, what we're left with is an owner of a small media company who was indirectly quoted once in an MSNBC article, who has recently filed a civil lawsuit against the Chicago Outfit that has not garnered any coverage (let alone significant coverage) by reliable sources, and who (presumably, since he posted his court filings to his company web site) is looking to gain publicity for his action. Sorry, but that's not enough to establish notability. Not even close.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

:Comment Added several news sources and expanded on explanation on Fosco's role at KTF and involvement with the Outfit. Sritchern (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

::Comment No, you added a link to a blog on Blogspot dedicated to "The Conrad Black Trial" [http://conradblacktrial.blogspot.com/2007/06/media-roundup-importance-of-being.html] which quotes a Sun-Times columnist as having had dinner with Conrad Black: "Sun-Times columnist Stella Foster mentions a dinner that Conrad Black had in her latest column: "EMBATTLED LORD CONRAD BLACK, on trial in Chicago, apparently took some down time to dine with Cardinal Francis George May 21 at the Holy Name Cathedral's Rectory on North Wabash. Others in attendance at this small and private dinner: the Rev. Dan Mayall, pastor of Holy Name; Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus Timothy J. Lyne; businessman Joseph Fosco, and attorney Robert DeMeo."" The only reference to Fosco is a passing one as an attendee at the dinner. The other "news source" you claim to have added as a reference is, in reality, a message board [http://www.realdeal-forum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13368&p=147392]. Please stop with the bad faith misrepresentations.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

::Comment I appreciate your zeal in patrolling Wikipedia, but I feel you're being very picky here. I say this not to insult you, as you seem very reasonable, but I feel I must express my disagreement with you on this matter. The news story is real. It is a matter of getting to a copy of it, as the Chicago Sun-Times does not allow free access to their online archives (there are actually a few stories with mention of Joseph Fosco in them that have appeared in the Sun-Times over the last few years). I found a copy of it elsewhere. It goes toward credibility, proving that Fosco and Black do, in fact, know each other. As for message boards and blogs - this is the internet. Do you doubt that the stories are true? Or does a story only count if it was once printed on paper? I understand that Joseph Fosco is not as famous as a Conrad Black or Francis Cardinal George, but I feel it is pretty clear this man is notable. Sritchern (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Comment Even assuming the blog accurately quoted the Sun-Times column, the reference to Fosco in the column is a passing one merely noting that "businessman Joseph Fosco" was one of many attendees at a dinner involving Cardinal George and Conrad Black. Once again, a one-sentence mention is not nearly enough to establish notability: the standard is significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As for the issue of message boards, they do not meet the Wikipedia standard for reliable sources. This is not a close case: the subject does not meet the notability standard.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Fosco||}}

• Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - zero Ghits on Google News; no way to verify the facts much less show notability by way of reliable sources. As an adjunct, he also fails WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

:Comment Why would WP:PROF apply to this situation? Sritchern (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Chicago Sun Times Columnist, Stella Foster [http://conradblacktrial.blogspot.com/2007/06/media-roundup-importance-of-being.html authored an article] in June of 2007, citing a meeting relevant to Fosco, Conrad Black and Holy Name Cathedral, which supports the new statement added to Fosco’s Wikipedia page today (Mr. Fosco’s media interest was inspired after befriending Conrad Black via Mr. Fosco’s honorary Stewardship Committee position at Chicago’s Holy Name Cathedral in 2007.) Please be advised that the intended recipient of Fosco's Holy name Cathedral [http://www.ktfmediagroup.com/joefosco/holyname.html stewardship letter] asked KTF Media Internet Magazine to block out his identity. So basically Fosco appears in two highly credible media publications, msnbc and Chicago Sun Times. Fosco's Internet Magazine, KTF Media Group has garnered media mogul Conrad Black as a contributor. Fosco is an intended murder victim who filed a lawsuit against a United States Mafia Boss and members, which is has a particular oddity in itself that creates a notability of its own. This article should stay in place.

Sritchern (talk) 16:36, 18 July 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.