Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elito Circa


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Elito Circa

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is under heavy scrutiny at its Talk page for suspected sock puppetry, large amounts of (suspected) copyright infringements, dubious claims, uncited material, and I suspect it's also self-promotion. See the discussion at the Talk page for more info. ★Ama  TALK   CONTRIBS  23:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Philippines.  ★Ama   TALK   CONTRIBS  23:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Visual arts,  and Comics and animation. Netherzone (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Elito Circa, User talk:Artsaqua. Reason: Notifying talk page and original author (since indefinitely blocked since it was sockpuppet). ★Ama  TALK   CONTRIBS  00:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:TNT. The article is an autobiography created by a blocked sock with the same name as the artist's nom de plume, heavily edited by multiple sockpuppets and single purpose accounts and IPs from the Philipines. Undisclosed paid editing may also factor in as the article was riddled with peacockery, copyright violations and exaggerated claims. I've done quite a bit of clean up, as there might be a possibility of notability, but it is hard to sift thru the self-published and primary sourcing and I believe it would be best to delete it. Netherzone (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is possible, but not definite and the current refs aren't reliable enough to prove it. Given the issues with the article I agree that it needs to be WP:TNTed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.