Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Andrew Capasso

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Andrew Capasso

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

While the article does cite reliable sources, I don't think that these sources include coverage of sufficient depth to support a biographical article. As far as I can tell, Capasso's claim to "notability" comes from his alleged affair with a beauty queen and his alleged bribery of a judge to get lower alimony payments in his divorce. (Newspaper reports also indicate he was convicted of tax fraud, but that's not really a claim to notability in itself.) Virtually all the press coverage seems to center around the Hortense Gabel scandal, not Capasso's own life. His obituary describes him as being an "obscure city sewer contractor" prior to the scandal. This falls within the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:ONEEVENT. *** Crotalus *** 22:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the creator. His coverage in reliable sources starts in 1987 at his conviction for tax evasion, and ends in 2001 at his death. He has obituaries in every major New York newspaper, and major coverage in a book that has full biographical details. The article is a stub but can contain more if others want to add more. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In my opinion this article contains enough sourced material to pass WP:GNG. But perhaps more input is needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough RS coverage for notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as having wide range of reliable sources. The wide publication of his obits speaks against BLP:1E Stuartyeates (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2013 (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.