Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William A. Tomasso

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. Leaving aside issues of COI, this is a valid nomination, but the consensus clearly concludes that the subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion requirements, and we therefore ought to have an article about him. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Tomasso

William A. Tomasso (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)

Hello, I'm submitting a request to delete this

As for potential sources, searching "William Tomasso" at Google News yields just 4 results: the first actually focuses on Angelo Tomasso Jr.; the second is just a quote by the subject as president of TBI Construction; the third mentions the subject in passing; and the fourth is not about the subject whatsoever. Searching "William A. Tomasso" and "Billy Tomasso" at Google News yield additional results, but after browsing the first several pages of returns, I'm not seeing any coverage specifically about the subject. I should also note, some of the information in the "Career" section already appears in the Tomasso Group's "Modern history" section.

I think most editors would agree there's not enough press coverage of William Tomasso to meet Wikipedia's notability threshold and justify a standalone article. There's not enough coverage to flesh out the page with details about his early life and education, career, personal life, and notable accomplishments, which seem to be the building blocks of a Wikipedia biography. Any details about Mr. Tomasso could easily be covered in Tomasso Group.

Thanks to editors who are willing to review this request. SHtom5916 (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep nominator works for the subject and is mischaracterizing the notability of the subject. Try searching for "William A. Tomasso” on google/google news and you will find many many more than four articles. It should be noted that a major part of the subjects notability is their criminality which would be a good reason to have your personal assistant try to get your wikipedia page deleted.
  Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment it should be noted that this appears to be the second attempt at COI editing regarding this page [1], the first was less within the rules. The
  Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (and perhaps a Speedy Keep): There appear to be multiple, independent sources providing non-trivial coverage of the subject, which satisfy
  WP:COI
  issues here.--
• Keep I agree with
  WP:GNG. I'm not gonna even cover the COI here, which is obvious. Less Unless (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep, this is an obvious COI attempt to whitewash the subject. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment can we close as a speedy keep now?
  Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: Thank you all for the replies here. I understand why editors would be skeptical of someone with a conflict of interest seeking deletion of this article, but my reasons for deletion are based on what I understand so far about sourcing and Wikipedia policy. I submitted this request in good faith, believing Mr. Tomasso didn't meet eligibility. I want to respond to some of the notes here as I want to make sure I understand fully. There is very little secondary coverage specifically documenting William Tomasso outside his connection to Tomasso Group. The article's creator (User:Horse Eye Jack) has said "The
  WP:LOWPROFILE argument is also a non-starter because the subject has actively sought out media attention", but that's not the case, he keeps a low profile and hasn't had any interviews or profiles. The article right now uses a news profile of his father and Mr. Tomasso's personal website, and the other pieces are mainly about the legal case and aren't solely focused on Mr. Tomasso. I thought that he would need media coverage that was just about him in order to keep a Wikipedia article? SHtom5916 (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

By legal case do you mean the criminal trial which ended in his conviction? There are two legal cases currently discussed on the page, one civil (the alleged stalking/harassment of a former employee and their family) and one criminal (racketeering, fraud, bribery, extortion, etc).

Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Also [2] appears to be a feature article specifically about “Bill” Tomasso.

Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Unfortunately we cannot control what the media has already said and
  WP:PUBLICFIGURE seems to apply, so this is one we'd have to Keep. There are problems with the article's tone off the bat, but that's fixable. --Masem (t) 17:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or merge somewhere. It all comes down to whether you believe Tomasso is a
  WP:BLP1E does not apply. But at the moment I don't see any evidence that he is one. Take the current article and delete all discussion of his conviction: would the resulting article survive an AFD? And on a side issue the argument that a completely openly declared COI means we should just ignore the request are obviously wrong: the original poster is behaving perfectly properly here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2020 (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.