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. While an argument can be put forward that there are enough sources mentioning John Rosatti that he meets our notability guidelines even without the organized crime speculations, that notability is not sufficent to place Wikipedia and the subject under risk of poorly introduced speculation. Under WP:BLP we need to very careful and sure of controversial topics. Will WP:SALT as requested. SilkTork *YES! 16:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Rosatti[edit]

AfDs for this article:
John Rosatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is currently the subject of a BLP discussion here, in which some editors strongly believe that the sources tying the subject to organized crime are insufficient and should not be included. Sans that portion of the subject's life, the article fails notability, because it's then just about a car salesman who owns a fast boat. In the interest of protecting the subject from these ongoing disputes, I recommend salting the entry until such time as there are sufficient, undisputed sources establishing his notability. --otherlleft 15:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: That POV seems to ignore the fact that newspapers, even the NYT, have to print retractions on a regular basis. Newspapers have printed things later shown to be false. They've been sued for libel and lost. Just saying that a paper is reputable doesn't mean everything they say about a person is correct. The NYT is "respected", but that didn't prevent Jayson Blair from getting fabrications printed. The New Republic and Stephen Glass? Hell, a Pulitzer was given to Janet Cooke for story that was later shown to be a lie. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the case at all, the fact that controversial content which has been cited to a single source and has been disputed is not a reflection on the overall reliability of the source but a isolated reflection on the single situation as regards specific controversial content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is either deliberately misleading or the product of faulty reading ability. I'd like to think it's the latter, but given that the additional sources supporting the contention in question appear in the first screen of the BLPN discussion it's hard to give up on the former. There are multiple reliable sources asserting a connection between Rosatti and the crime family. Why are people having a difficult time acknowledging this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith Nomo, I will assure you, although I should not have to, my comment has no attempt to be deliberately misleading in any way and although you question the fact, I can read. This is AFD not the place to dispute the reliability of sources. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That last point makes no sense to me. The reliability of the Voice was central to the BLP discussion, which is central to the deletion rationale. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD stands alone, if people still have issues as regards the disputed content then this should be discussed at relevant locations. Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should explain why you do not find the multiple sources reliable at BLPN then Jezhotwells (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editors have several times presented the subject's being a member of an organised-crime family as an established fact in the article [1][2][3][4][5]. Only one source, William Bastone, who has since left the Village Voice and now runs TheSmokingGun.com, has presented it as such. The other sources (and there are only two or three) mention it as an (attributed) allegation. Editors also cited court records directly to suggest the subject had asked for someone to be murdered. Direct citation of such primary sources, if they have not first been published by a secondary source, is a violation of WP:NPF, the text of which I'll reproduce here with the relevant passages marked in bold italics:

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source, above.)

Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person may be cited if and only if: (1) it is corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources; (2) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and; (3) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", with the Wikipedia article taking no position on their truth.

On the subject of court records in BLPs, also cf. WP:WELLKNOWN. I have no confidence that this article, if retained, has any chance now of a BLP-compliant existence in our project. The claims are out there on the web for those interested in them. Given the subject's marginal notability, we have more to lose than to gain by having an article on him. Lastly, the editors who are insistent on having these allegations in Wikipedia should reflect on the fact that if they had included them in a responsible, BLP-compliant manner in the first place, i.e. as attributed allegations, they might well have prevented this AfD. --JN466 23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources , the Palm Beach Post, Philadelphia Daily News, Village Voice, UPI, were introduced to support the allegations, but they were then removed by User:Crackofdawn and X!, so the above assertation is plainly untrue as a reading of the article history will show. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jezhotwells, those are the other two or three sources I was referring to above, and they are represented in the diffs I posted. As far as I could see when I researched these secondary sources, they all attributed the allegation to someone: either to Bastone in the Village Voice, or to unnamed law enforcement officials. None except Bastone presented it as an unattributed fact. The subject has never been charged with respect to these allegations, and they have never been tested in court. BLP policy, quoted above, is clear: if damaging allegations are represented at all, the article should "state that the sources make certain 'allegations', with the Wikipedia article taking no position on their truth." --JN466 09:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those "court records" aren't primary sources. The testimony would be the primary source. The appeals court review of testimony is a secondary source. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a verbatim quote from WP:BLP: "Exercise great care in using primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." If you want to work in controversial BLPs, it would really make sense to read up on BLP policy. --JN466 00:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're simply wrong here. You've reached the point of arguing that all "public documents" are primary sources, and can't be used as sources, and that all court documents are primary sources, and can't be used as sources. From WP:SECONDARY: Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources write about primary sources, often making analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about them. And that's exactly what we have here, an appeals court document reviewing primary source material (the trail transcript/record), therefore a secondary source. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're so caught up in truth that you can't admit that you're wrong. You keep citing a supposed court document that lists this man as having ties with the mob? Link to it specifically, but while you do this, make sure that you follow WP:V to the letter. So far, we have had a single person make claims(Bas) and present them as facts, without citing any source that is verifiable. We then have had several other sources cite Bas, but, guess what, they do not state what he has said as fact, but an allegation. Huge difference there. You're arguing to include poorly sourced material, in clear violation of WP:BLP. A single source stated it as fact, and the other sources stated it as what it was: an allegation. If you want to include the material, you can't argue about having it state the allegation as a fact, as you cannot argue that because source B cites source A, source A is right. You have to read the details, as it is quite clearly source B citing the statements made in source A as what they are: allegations. Nothing less than allegations, as we are not a rumor mill.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the content is clearly controversial, not covered nationally by major publications, and accusatory in nature, mostly unproven allegations that could well be extremely damaging in nature to a living person we clearly need to take care with such content. You can't discuss citations out of context without the content you want to support, this citation [6] appears to be a simple copy of a court record, there is no discussion, no analytic anything, it is a copy of a primary court report and imo unusable. If the article is kept then there are people that dispute the desired additions and people that want to include it, this will be discussed at more relevant places if the article is kept. Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pulitzer-prize winning newspapers aren't "major"; secndary sources are primary, reporting felony/criminal convictions is accusatory, and on and on. The consensus at BLPN went against you. Stop making stuff up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about you stop making stuff up first? The consensus at BLPN did not go against him, 4 editors is not consensus.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Philadelphia Daily News is a struggling tabloid that has won Pulitzers for its cartoons (1992) and editorial writing (1985). The Village Voice is a free alternative paper; while it is an RS, its reliability is not on a par with that of a national newspaper that people pay money for. Bastone is known for tabloid-style reporting. His writing in the Village Voice is presently the only source that states as an unattributed fact that the subject is a member of a crime family. The other sources say it is said or alleged, and they say who says or alleges it. Our article, on the other hand, followed Bastone in making a bald statement of fact, and that is a problem per WP:NPF. So is accessing court records that have not previously been referenced in a secondary source, such as a newspaper or book reporting on the trial; particularly as the specific allegation quoted was not what the case was about, and the BLP subject has never been indicted, as far as I can tell, in relation to this allegation. The convictions you refer to are outcomes of court actions mentioned in newspapers; those aspects seem less of a BLP problem. I have no agenda here except BLP, which applies to everyone, regardless of their perceived merits or failings. If we can't get the article of a marginally notable person right, then it should go. --JN466 17:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for measuring the reliability of the Village Voice here should be the quality and reputation at the time the relevant material was published, 2010 years ago, when it was a nationally distributed newsweekly of great repute. One might as well argue that the work of noted scientist X is unreliable because the individual has since fallen victim to dementia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Village Voice article is from 1998, the Philadelphia News one from 2004. --JN466 18:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your critique of past versions, especially in re making bald assertions, and if this is kept I will contribute to "getting it right". Also on the court documents issue (I don't like the policy, but I agree that you are reading it correctly). I think you can count on similar cooperation from other editors here, and so I am more optimistic about "getting it right". I too have no agenda here except BLP, and my only concern is that certain editors (not you) are misusing it. In any event, I continue to think he is notable and am happy to contribute towards addressing other concerns. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --JN466 18:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it didn't. We will see how it goes. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment Thanks to Nomoskedasticity for solid reporting here. It's clear that the sources establishing his notability as a figure in organized crime are far more numerous, and far more important, than the sources establishing his notability as a benign public figure (which amount to a couple of mentions in Yachting magazine). However, since all sources use some variant of "alleged" in describing his crime connection, the information is probably not solid enough to provide the basis for a Wikipedia article. Thus, my vote that the subject should be deleted as non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
One more comment: The infobox lists "world's fastest yacht" as what he is "known for". But that is questionable. In a Google search for "world's fastest yacht," Rosatti is not mentioned - at least not in the first two pages of ghits. A boat built by his company gets two mentions, or rather the same mention twice, but it does not name Rosatti. Further evidence of his lack of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Notability can be established by as little as one source, if it covers the subject with sufficient depth. There is only one source - the Bastone Village Voice article - which really covers the subject and implicates him with organized crime, rather than saying that it's a rumor or allegation. I think the question really is whether or not that single source covers the subject in sufficient depth to establish notability.--otherlleft 15:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it were an in-depth article in the New York Times, this might be a more difficult decision; but an article by a tabloid journalist, printed in a free tabloid, does not meet the standard of WP:NPF, which demands corroboration by "multiple highly reliable sources". The Village Voice is not highly reliable (see opinion at RSN). --JN466 16:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the extract of of the Columbian reference at BLPN, but as you missed it, here is the full text: Nelson, Jonathan (14 February 2008). "Yachts built by Vancouver-based Christensen Shipyards Ltd. set sail. The downturn in the U.S. economy has had little impact on the luxury-boat industry, a Christensen official said. Christensen Shipyards Ltd. renowned for its composite hull yachts, has hired a New Zealand luxury boatmaker to engineer its newest generation of ships to be built at a new manufacturing plant in Tennessee. Joe Foggia, Christensen president and chief operating officer, considers High Modulus to be the best company in the world to design and engineer the hull and chemical makeup of the composite material to be used on the newest line of Christensen yachts, which will stretch from 165 feet to 225 feet in length and cost up to $80 million. Christensen will be working with High Modulus' office in Hamble, England. High Modulus produces several sailing and power boats and earned its reputation in working with composite material in the 1980s when it designed New Zealand's sailing boat that raced in the America's Cup. The partnership is a major step in Christensen's efforts to increase its European presence. The first push east came in 2006 when it cemented plans to build a $20 million complex in Vonore, Tenn., a hotbed of boatmakers 30 miles from Knoxville. The plant sits on 55 acres with 2,000 feet of waterfront access to a deep water lake that feeds into the Tennessee River. Foggia said work on the building is expected to end this month. It will take the rest of the year to build the tooling and molds needed for the new yachts. High Modulus' expertise is especially needed since the larger boats are regulated differently than the ships built in Vancouver. The Vancouver-built yachts weigh less than 500 gross tons and require fire retardation construction to be focused on the engine compartment, Foggia said. The Tennessee-built vessels will exceed that weight benchmark and require fire retardation design for the entire ship. The interiors of the bigger yachts will also increase. A 160-foot yacht has about 6,500 square feet of interior space. A 190-foot yacht has 13,000 square feet. Christensen already has an order for the first yacht to come from Tennessee. John Rosatti, who owns two Christensen yachts, wants a 186-foot model that is expected to be completed by 2011. Rosatti is a multimillionaire who owns several car dealerships on the East Coast, and is also known for his past ties to the Colombo Mafia family of New York. Rosatti was also a previous co-owner of Millennium Super Yachts. Foggia said Christensen, which employs 450 people at its Vancouver facilities, is fielding numerous calls about the bigger yachts, but said the company won't actively market the vessels until the Tennessee plant is operational. Foggia expects 100 to 150 people to be working at the facility within the next 18 months and up to 450 people within five years. Despite sagging consumer confidence and an economy some suspect is in the midst of a recession, Christensen operates in an industry that is somewhat bulletproof. Its Vancouver plant builds ships that top out in size at 157 feet long. Foggia said companies that produce ships bigger than 130 feet long experience little trouble in attracting buyers. Those well-heeled consumers are flocking to Miami this week for the 20th annual Miami Yacht & Brokerage Show. Foggia, who is in the south Florida city, said Christensen has three of its yachts on display. The show is the ideal place for people to see the interior of the company's yachts and to get a sense of the craftsmanship. Foggia said that despite new hull engineering and slight alteration in styling, there will be no mistaking that the ships produced in Tennessee are Christensen yachts." Sorry, I forgot to sign this earlier. I underlined the interesting statement which is not qualified by the wrod alleged or similar. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
additional sources: This is copied from the BLP discussion (originally posted by user:Jezhotwells for convenience: Lambiet, Jose (24 October 2004). "Is John Staluppi Saving Riviera Beach?" (Subscription required). Palm Beach Post, archived at LexisNexis. The Palm Beach Newspapers. Retrieved 2009-12-31. Take John Rosatti, for example. Also a local business stalwart and a convicted felon, Rosatti was found to be a "career offender" by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission, based in part on testimony that he was a "made member" of the Colombo family. Rosatti is Staluppi's best friend and partner in many business ventures, including the Riviera Beach land investments. "They just grew up together," Richman said. Rosatti, too, declined to be interviewed for this story. And through his lawyer, Mike Burman, he denied being a member of the Mafia. "Mr. Rosatti has no idea why he was described as a career criminal and a Colombo soldier," Burman wrote in an e-mail. "He has no knowledge of why any individual . . . would make that kind of representation, except for their own self gain." Yet, previously unreleased details about Staluppi's history, and indirectly about Rosatti, came to light in 1992-93, courtesy of the Casino Control Commission. Staluppi appeared on the radar screen of casino authorities when his company, Dillinger Charter Services, applied for a license to shuttle casino patrons to and from New York City by helicopter. The license was denied on the basis of information that Staluppi was a member of the Colombo crime family, according to CCC records. Staluppi's name surfaced again a year later, this time as the CCC considered banning him for life from Boardwalk gambling joints. During that yearlong procedure, the CCC heard from law enforcement agents specializing in organized crime. One described how, in 1980, a Suffolk County undercover agent became Staluppi's limousine chauffeur and reported driving him to numerous meetings with high-ranking Colombo operatives, including then-boss Carmine "The Snake" Persico. The CCC also heard from an agent with the Jersey Division of Gambling Enforcement who obtained Staluppi's personal phone directory and appointment book. It contained the phone numbers of another onetime godfather, Victor "Little Vic" Orena, and of Colombo capos (or crew leaders) Theodore Persico Sr. and Pasquale Amato. The book showed Staluppi had been invited to the wedding of the daughter of another Colombo capo, Dominick "Donnie Shacks" Montemarano. Testifying in his defense, Staluppi admitted to meeting and knowing the Colombo leadership, but only in a business capacity. He told the CCC he sold cars to Orena, owned buildings with Carmine Persico's sons, bought carpets from Theodore Persico Sr. and was a close friend of Amato. But, Staluppi swore, he had no idea all were members of the Colombo family. "The Snake" Persico, Orena, Amato and Theodore Persico Sr. are serving life sentences in various federal lockups, while "Donnie Shacks" served 11 years for racketeering. Staluppi also brought his own set of character witnesses to the CCC. Among them was Palm Beach businessman and philanthropist Robert Cuillo, for whom West Palm Beach's Cuillo Centre for the Performing Arts is named. Cuillo appeared as a retired NYPD detective and a Florida car dealer who had done business with Staluppi. "John is a respectable businessman," he told the CCC, "and I think he is being stereotyped because he's Italian." In the end, the CCC denied the petition by the Division of Gaming Enforcement to ban Staluppi because there was "insufficient credible evidence" after FBI Special Agent Brian Taylor refused to reveal his sources. Then a strange thing happened: While the CCC was considering the ban on Staluppi, his name and that of his pal Rosatti popped up in FBI interviews of suspected mobsters. In the early 1990s, a war within the Colombo gang transformed Brooklyn into a battlefield. Eleven people, including an innocent bystander, were killed and 14 were injured. The gunplay between warring factions faithful to "The Snake" Persico and "Little Vic" Orena prompted the FBI to make a series of arrests. In transcripts of FBI interviews with some of those arrested and informants, no fewer than eight persons told the Feds on separate occasions that Staluppi and Rosatti participated in gang activities in one way or another. Several told the FBI that Staluppi and Rosatti sided with the Orena faction at first, then rejoined the Persico faction after Orena was arrested. In one of these interviews, Colombo enforcer Sal Miciotta, who was eventually sentenced to 14 years in prison, said in late 1993 that Rosatti had been asked by Orena to provide cars from his dealership to be used to carry out murders. Miciotta said Rosatti refused but gave Orena $50,000. Miciotta also told the Feds that Rosatti and Staluppi contributed another $50,000 for the legal defense of Orena and his lieutenant, Pasquale Amato, and that Staluppi lent his helicopter to high-ranking gangsters to attend a meeting in upstate New York. Another statement made by Colombo family accountant Kenneth Geller suggested that Staluppi and Rosatti were known to provide gangsters with "no-show" jobs in their dealerships - jobs for which gang members were paid $500 a week without working. Geller and his family are in a witness protection program. If there is anything Staluppi was ever guilty of, attorney Richman counters, it's growing up with people "who might otherwise have been investigated." Marokwitz (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google's second hit now returns the bowdlerized version of this article - the puff piece without any criminal allegations, but also without anything that makes him notable. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
OK, wait a minute here - Crackofdawn, aren't you the original author of the article? Are you now requesting that your article be deleted? --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
NOTE: The above comment by Crackofdawn about "contacting johns attorney" is under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Yes i want the page deleted and protected Crackofdawn (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2010 (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.
More