Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Carrone

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. The OP may have done a poor job of articulating their rationale, but procedural arguments to keep are always going to be weak when other editors have put forward substantive rationales. I don't see anyone making an argument to keep on the merits. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Carrone[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. The article only lists two sources, both of which are books. I've never read these books and don't know how much they discuss Carrone, but it's evident from the titles that neither one is about him. I could not find any additional sources. Based on this, I don't believe he meets notability requirements. Baronet13 (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak procedural keep. "I've never read these books and don't know how much they discuss Carrone" describes the problem: We really do need to look at sources to assess their quality and depth. We can't just assume books are poor sources without reading them. Books are big things; a book might not be entirely dedicated to Carrone, but nevertheless contain an in-depth discussion of his life, and it's our job to check that before we delete an article. If there had been a third book, this would have been a strong procedural keep, as I'm biased towards three good sources for an article. Elemimele (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is nigh-on impossible to judge whether a book has significant coverage of a topic without reading it, but it is possible to judge reliability. These two Google Books results don't scream "reliable" to me. They look like "true crime" dramas written in the breathless style so beloved by that genre. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PERP and provides no other claims of any notability. That is good enough for me. Rogermx (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Procedural close: without prejudice on future AfD: “I've never read these books and don't know how much they discuss Carrone” The nom has failed to show any valid reason for AFD or do a BEFORE or explore ATD. // Timothy :: talk 22:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that I couldn't find any evidence this guy even exists outside of allegedly being discussed in these two books (even that much can't be proven), which leads me to believe he could be a composite character, a pseudonym or maybe a hoax. It's strange that there don't seem to be any news reports about an allegedly notorious gangster. Baronet13 (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep "I've never read these books and don't know how much they discuss Carrone" isn't a good reason to raise AfD IMHO. As per @Rogermx: if WP:PERP is reason enough, it should have been the AfD~~ MetricMaster (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a simple question for @TimothyBlue:, @MetricMaster:, @MElemimele: and anybody else who wants to keep this article: can you find any evidence that Frank Carrone actually exists? Baronet13 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The relevant policy guidelines that would determine the appropriate outcome (i.e. keeping versus deletion) in this case are WP:CRIME and WP:PERP. The issue at hand is whether the coverage that exists on the subject passes the WP:SIGCOV threshold in a manner that would satisfy CRIME and NPERP. If the nature of coverage is sufficient to demonstrate notability under these guidelines, there will be a case for keeping. The case for deletion would require that the sources fail to amount to significant coverage, thus failing to demonstrate notability. Shawn Teller (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability of the sources has to be taken into consideration as well as the amount of coverage in them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that one of the two cited sources is a book written by an associate of Frank Carrone (assuming Carrone actually exists, which nobody has been able to verify yet) and is, therefore, not independent of him. That means there is, at most, one established example of coverage in independent secondary sources. Whether or not this is WP:SIGCOV is actually irrelevant, as multiple independent sources are required for WP:GNG. Baronet13 (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article's a mess, those two book sources aren't referenced within the article - and the first of them is actually titled The Life and Crimes of a Mobster, not a gangster. Nominator could have done better than leading with 'I didn't read no sources' but makes a good point about association - there's also this out there, derived from WP, which just adds citogenesis to the reasons to delete this unsourced, unverified - and virtually unverifiable - article. Outside of these two 'sources', WP:BEFORE throws up nothing - which doesn't really scream 'notorious gangster' to me... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have done a thorough Google search, found nothing of value, and can only conclude that this article is likely a hoax. This supposed Manhattan mobster does not appear in the archives of the New York Times although an enthusiastic Yankees fan named Lenore Carrone is mentioned once. If all the colorful anecdotes were even half true, it should be relatively easy to find coverage in reliable sources. If anybody finds actual coverage in actual reliable sources, I will be happy to reconsider. Cullen328 (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly not a hoax. I've found a copy of Goombata on the Internet Archive; pp. 83–86, 196. This 1992 book supports the existence of Carrone (sofar as the book is itself not a hoax). Frank "Buzzy" Carrone was a person, who had his right eye gouged out, worked under/for(?) Carmine Fatico, was arrested in Massachusetts, and died in jail. Interesting stuff. I was also able to find Joe Doggs, also on the Internet Archive, but unlike Goombata doesn't have an index and I'm not interested in reading the book to find where Carrone is mentioned. These two just aren't indexed in Google, making anything hard af to verify. Who knows how many impossible-to-search sources exist because no one cares enough for them. SWinxy (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to wonder if "Frank Carrone" could be a pseudonym, since there appears to be no evidence outside of this book that he exists. In any case, three pages about in one book him isn't enough to make him notable. Baronet13 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2023 (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.