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 stubbified per OTRS ticket #2008030310014816 . John Reaves 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Giaccone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No opinion on deletion, posting on behalf new user Pwilliams128 (talk · contribs). User believes article does not assert notability and contains serious factual inaccuracies. Roleplayer (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: In addition to serious factual inaccuracies throughout the article, the article on a whole is disparaging and libelous. As well, the citations provided do not support the vast majority of the information proffered in the body of the article, save for maybe "Philip Giaccone was born on July 12, 1932 in Ridgewood Queens".Pwilliams128 (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we have a fairly exhaustive collection of gangland, mobster and mafia articles and this is no exception. I cannot comment on the accuracy of the article (based on the editing history, probably inaccurate), but subject is verifiable. Eusebeus (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject is notable certainly. If there are content issues that you are concerned about, just replace the information you see as inaccurate and cite the new information more directly. matt91486 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a way to cite to personal knowledge I would have done that already. As is stands, there are far too many inaccuracies in the story to warrant a revision. I strongly feel that a deletion would be more prudent. Pwilliams128 (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I mean, just cite the place that you gained your personal knowledge from. If you're challenging sourcing, you have to have your own sources to back it up, and I'm presuming you had to learn the information from somewhere reputable. matt91486 (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, quite a few sources, and the fella was portrayed in a well-known movie. If there are factual discrepancies in the article they can be corrected through normal processes. --Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:With respect, his "portrayal" in a movie consists of the actor "portraying" him by sitting in a chair wearing glasses. That's it. No speaking lines, no movement, nothing. The main problem I have with this article is that the sources DO NOT support what is written in the article. I have checked these so called sources and none have proffered any of the substantive information that remains in this article. What's the point of listing a source if the source doesn't actualy support or correspond in any rational way to the "facts" you are trying to put forth. I can understand the "notability" argument, however the inaccuracies, blatant untruths, and lack of support in this article not only weaken the integrity of the entire Wikipedia system, but also disparage the name of a deceased man and his surviving family. If you can give me a decent and rational argument about how to remedy that without deleting this article, then I am all ears.69.114.153.169 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SPA, just as a note for the admin. matt91486 (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am in fact an SPA as defined by Wikipedia policies since I have only edited this article. I would like to please note, however, that I began doing so last year. From what I know of the article, and from what has been mentioned above, I just wanted to put my two cents in. And although I do believe strongly that the article should be deleted, I would like to assure you of my neutrality on a whole. I am certainly not a "sock puppet" or a "meat puppet". As well, I had not realized before now that editing a single article or topic would lead editors to give less weight to my ideas on this discussion. I do appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion. 69.114.153.169 (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not meaning to leave less weight to your arguments. But both you and Pwilliams have made arguments that are hard to refute: You both are saying that you know these things to be wrong, but neither of you is providing sources to counter the sources that you accuse of untruth. So, I guess, I'm just waiting for either of you to demonstrate why we shouldn't trust the listed sources. I of course want the article to be accurate, so if you can show sources better than the listed ones and we can correct the article, then of course it should be done. I don't want untrue information any more than you do. matt91486 (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand where you are coming from, however, the things I know are from personal experience with this man and his family and quite frankly I don't know hot to cite that. It's a difficult thing to read something about someone that you know to be categorically false, however you have no ability to refute that through writings and paper support. In many ways it is word against word. Please think about if someone were to write something about you in an article. The things they wrote were 99% false even though the article contained

"sources" that supported that false information. Can you demonstrate with written support of your own evidence that would refute what the article says and would support your side of the story? I certainly wouldn't be able to and unfortunately I am unable to with respect to this article as well. To that point, I would like to express two things: (1) The sources listed in the article do not support what the article actually says. That's the first and biggest problem. I'm sure everyone has better things to do with their time than to read all of the aforementioned sources, however, if you were to do so, you would find that they do not correspond, even loosely, to what is said in the article. If someone can get away with throwing a few sources down which supposedly support the "facts" laid out in an article, without the sources actually being checked, then I can just as easily come along and throw down a few names of non-fiction "mafia" books that supposedly give my side of the story. That's ridiculous and is not what Wikipedia is here for. If the sources in the article supported all of the assertions laid out in the article, then my argument would be much weaker and I would have to take up the fight with the authors and manufacturers of the books themselves. That leads to my second point which is that (2) Wikipedia has been so successful in fighting attempted lawsuits against them because they cannot be held responsible for supplying facts that are put forth in separate media outlets (books, magazines, etc). In this case, however, Wikipedia is allowing factually inaccurate information to remain on a page with no real sources or support. Because of those two points, I feel the deletion of the article would be the most responsible course of action to take. 69.114.153.169 (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subliterate, most of its claims are functionally unsourced, and, unless everybody mentioned in the article is dead, it's a WP:BLP violation. No claim of notability, either; being an (unconvicted?) minor-league criminal with a mediocre nickname just doesn't cut it. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubbify. Remove all statements that do not match the sources (I haven't read them myself), which if Pwilliams128 is to be believed, is most of the article. howcheng {chat} 22:09, 4 March 2008 (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.