Deletion of Anna Genovese

Comment: At a WP:COMMONSENSE level, {{u|Atlantic306}}'s initial argument is WP:SIGCOV – 4-5 years of research by a notable author on the BLP subject, brocast via a podcast series sponsored by the New York Times, a /P.  In addition, {{u|RebeccaGreen}}'s, and other, references also support broader WP:GNG.  There is certainly no consensus to delete this BLP (I was almost tempted to close it myself on that basis), however, there is also a clear consensus that it passes WP:BASIC as a Keep. Meeting WP:BASIC is not a legal concept, it is the consensus of a collection of Wikipedians following ''guidelines'' (not rules), as to what constitutes sufficient RS that can support a subject's GNG. I know that {{u|Vaselineeeeeeee}} has worked hard on this AfD, but they should listen to what other experienced Wikipedian's are saying – I have been there myself (many times); you go in with one view, and it gets completely turned, but that is what makes it interesting
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Ugh, this is disappointing. Per  "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person". The only thing that makes her remotely notable is her involvement in one trial - her testimony against Vito. This can, and is, easily incorporated into Vito's article. A trial of a woman divorcing her husband or being a waitress at a couple gay bars, mixed with speculations about her sexuality, does not make her notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PERP)

Comment: u|Vaselineeeeeeee}}, I see that you found the sources I have saved in my sandbox. They do not constitute the totality of sources on Anna Genovese. Nor have I saved the Ancestry search results in order to include them in the article. Searching Ancestry and similar databases is , apart from the fact that census returns are primary sources and may not refer to the same person. What they do give me, and the reason why I search on websites like Ancestry, is more information to use in searches of secondary sources. Searching any database, whether it's digitised newspapers or Google, does not immediately bring up all possible results - in digitised sources, sometimes the OCR fails, and in Google, perhaps it's their algorithms, I don't know. Providing more information in the source, or using other search terms, can find results that are otherwise missed. Please do not use links I have saved in work in progress to argue about a subject's notability - there is a reason that I have not (yet) added them to the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)