Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Vito Perna (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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Vito Perna[edit]

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

The article was created by a blocked user and it does not pass WP:CRIME. Vic49 (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy delete (oops - can't be speedied since it survived a previous AFD) as a violation of WP:BLP. The article states as fact that the subject is guilty of various crimes, but the only source is an arrest warrant alleging the accusations. See WP:CRIME, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although Perna is presumed not guilty on the current charges, he has a history of convictions related to illegal gambling. Per the NJ.com story cited in the article, "Perna, a well-known bookmaker and the brother of the onetime New Jersey underboss for the Lucchese crime family, has been sentenced on criminal gambling charges at least a half-dozen times in the past 25 years. Most recently, the 61-year-old from East Hanover was sentenced to 15 months in a federal prison for running a gambling racket with his sons." Presumably, the guidelines in WP:CRIME are intended to avoid tainting people's reputations by tying them to crimes of which they may or may not be guilty. Since Perna has a history of involvement in crimes similar to those of which he's now accused, I don't think we have to be quite so solicitous about protecting his reputation. Ammodramus (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've gone through the article and replaced assertions of fact with "alleged" and "purported" phrasings, and have found sources for every statement in the article. I removed a passage about prison smuggling that shouldn't have been in this article (according to the source, the accused wasn't the subject of the article, but one of his sons). I think it now meets BLP standards.

I don't think WP:CRIME is properly applied in this situation. It begins "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial..." Perna is not known in connection with a single criminal event: he is alleged to be a higher-up in a major criminal organization. He's featured prominently enough in the NJ AG's press releases and the stories written about the bust of the allged gambling/extortion ring to create a reasonable presumption of notability. Ammodramus (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:CRIME, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aandres31 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete and merge with Lucchese crime family. Not every member, associate or affiliate of the mafia needs an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byki (talk • contribs) 13:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lucchese crime family per WP:CRIME: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." The Lucchese crime family can clearly accommodate this material; once the body of information and citations about this person gets larger, it may warrant a separate article, but not yet. --Batard0 (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Batard0 - You make a good point, but the article has only been up for 3 months. I think more time is necceasry to determine wether it can be expanded more and kept. I give it a weak keep for now. --Ted87 (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - so that we can determine if the article can be expanded.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2012 (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.