Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mafia Capitale

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 no consensus. While the discussion leans towards keeping, I don't think there is a consensus. There is a consensus however that it should be renamed and Mafia Capitale scandal seems to be the most popular name so will move it there, though this discussion should not prevent a move in the future. Davewild (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mafia Capitale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Nominal indication of notability from these sources. If they are...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are hundreds of reliable sources that refer mafia organization known as Mafia capital present in Rome.

Daily increase in number and detail because the investigation continues. Do you want to deny the reality of the facts? Manox81 (talk) 6:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)— Manox81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment There is no such thing as putting a deletion discussion on hold. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The name should be Mafia Capitale scandal, but it shouldn't exist as it is not yet notable enough. This article was deleted just recently on the Italian Wikipedia discussed here. The phrase seems to be a neologism defined here although the reliability of that source is unknown to me. What I get from the English sources and Google translation of Italian sources is there is no organization call "Mafia Capitale". "Mafia Capitale" is an investigation into Mafia infiltration in the government of Rome. The English sources mention arrests, but I do not see enough notability for an article. Perhaps a mention in the Crime in Italy article? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Make that Speedy Delete. This article has been deleted twice in the last few days. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as the reasons for speedy deletion are not present in the current version (BLP, G12 don't seem to apply, and G4 was bogus as there doesn't appear to be any previous deletion discussion), then that is not relevant. Mr Potto (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, there might be a copyright problem, depending on http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Mafia_Capitale - is that anything to do with Wikipedia? Is it a mirror? Mr Potto (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note One of the previous CSDs was for copyvio of that site. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There were only two short sentences, so I've paraphrased and hopefully it shouldn't be a copyright problem now. Hopefully the deletion discussion can now continue based on the merits of the content itself. Mr Potto (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• And that site is a mirror anyway (see http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/?about - thanks @VernoWhitney:) It seems the G4/G12 speedy deletion was doubly wrong. Mr Potto (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's stop saying that there is' a problem of copyright also because http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/ copied the article on wikipedia.Manox81 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I discussed the deletion reasons at User talk:Barek#Mafia Capitale - if I could edit or comment within the log I would. I had meant to remove the G4 reason prior to deletion (was auto-populated from the speedy tag) and I was mistaken on the G10. That said, that prior version would have still been deleted due to BLP issues in that version of the article. However, the current version of the article does not repeat those BLP issues, so this AfD should focus on the notability and quality of the refs involved - the prior deletion reasons aren't applicable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I see it, I'll strike my speedy delete, but I still think it should be deleted. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I'm with Richard-of-Earth after looking at the @it WP pages. This may be simply some journalistic hype designed to sell newspapers. The arguments against it in @it WP were that it isn't an understood phenomenon, it isn't clearly defined, and the whole thing may well blow over. If it gains substance, the article can then be created. LaMona (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Changing to weak keep. The name is indeed hype, but it seems to have stuck. This is an event more than a thing, so it would be clearer to call it "Mafia capitale scandal." LaMona (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's just a corruption scandal not yet notable enough. It's not a mafia despite its scandalistic name used by the Italian news media. --Enok (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Enok see this source: [1] Manox81(talk) 17:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mafia apitale is in the headlines of Italian press since the beginning of this year.Many notable sources avaibles.User:Lucifero4
• Strong delete This article, as it stands, contains little or no useful information, and is mostly speculative. It is also contradictory. The sources refer to a scandal or an investigation by this name, but not an "organization - yet "membership of 5,000" is claimed. This same article was deleted from the Italian Wikipedia. The reasons given (loosely translated) are as follows:

- The sources are considered to be tabloids by the Italian Wikipedia editors.

- The information on the investigation is protected data, and the sources would have to be leaked information or speculation.

- The content is not encyclopedic, it is news of questionable source and coverage.

- The existence of the organization is questionable, and any article should be written on the scandal, not an organization.

- The articles covering the event are considered sensationalist.

Scr★pIron^IV 14:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• These are all personal considerations and not objective facts. [2] Manox81(talk) 22:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Not an organization?The defendents are accused to be part of an "associazione a delinquere di stampo mafioso".The sources are not leaked but part of the papers of the investigation that are on public domain at this time of the criminal procedure.User:Lucifero4

• Keep, but rename it to "Mafia Capitale affair" or "scandal". The subject is notable, but the trial did not start yet. The judges did not decide whether the organisation exists or not. Alex2006 (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

  From Manox81 (talk · contribs)'s sources: Rai News24, BBC, Il Fatto Quotidiano, Corriere della Sera, The Huffington Post, and Reuters (via The New York Times). These reputable sources clearly provide substantial coverage. I agree with a rename to "Mafia Capitale affair" or "scandal" per Alessandro57 and LaMona.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mafia Capitale to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2015 (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.