Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Wean

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 no consensus. There is no consensus here whether the articles meets the notability guidelines or not. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Wean

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wean does not pass WP:CRIME Vic49 (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for WP:CRIME. --Cox wasan (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor criminal, fails WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—seems to meet gng, although the article is in quite bad shape. i fixed it a little, added one nyt source, one wash post source. the dude is discussed in all those books in the refs section that aren't cited inline, but that's a matter for editing, some of which i will try to do soon. however, the fact that he's discussed in them is enough to meet the gng.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In both newspaper articles he is only mentioned once as a witness and not as mayor criminal. Notability is not about being mentioned in a newspaper article. - DonCalo (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you are absolutely correct that his notability is not established by the newspaper articles. that is why i noted above that he was discussed in the books and stated explicitly that it was the books that i was basing my argument that he meets the gng. did you look at them? here's one:

Anthony M. DeStefano (27 May 2008). King of the Godfathers: Big Joey Massino and the Fall of the Bonanno Crime Family. Citadel Press. pp. 130–. ISBN 978-0-8065-2874-8. Retrieved 29 October 2011.

this is the only one with an actual preview in gbooks, but it's got pages on the guy.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in 4 mafia books. Portillo (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs some attention but there is in my opinion no question about this one passing WP:CRIME. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how does it meet WP:CRIME? LibStar (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails WP:CRIME. Article actually is more a case for Joe Massino being notable. LibStar (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i'm glad you called out BabbaQ on his WP:JUSTAPOLICY, because i think that the level of discussion at afds in general could stand to be a great deal higher, but i don't see how you're not doing roughly the same thing. here's the relevant sentence from WP:CRIME: Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. now, it's clear to me that this guy meets it, but i can see that this is a borderline case and that reasonable editors can disagree on whether or not he meets it. how does he not, in your opinion?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough references and material to meet GNG. There is a full page on him in the mafia book already used as a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly, there are some sources available. The trick now is to use them to fix the article, but cleanup is not a deletion issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who first brought this article up for attention, as I saw no evidence of this guy having any major impact on his crime family or the world at large. I wasn't entirely sure if I could still vote, but if I can I consequently recommend deletion. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 13:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have been editing these LCN articles since 2007 and have never seen this guy mentioned anywhere else. Having good references does not make someone notable.Rogermx (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant involvement in major criminal activities over a period of time; adequately sourced. According to some views expressed here (and at other similar article AfDs), the criteria for career criminals would be "famous" , but, like for everything else here, it's merely "notable". DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.