Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Ricca


 * 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. Even after improvements have been made to the article, the overall consensus is that the subject does not meet notability guidelines and that the coverage is typical of routine local news, insufficient to be of wider interest. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Tony Ricca

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is clearly promotional in its current form, and bordering on a hoax. It is maintained by one user, who has reverted any attempt to challenge its content. The three images in the article are also uploaded by the same user, which are sourced to a Flickr account by the article subject.

As for its sources, many are user-submitted through contribution programs (HuffPost, Entrepreneur, ThriveGlobal), user-uploaded (YouTube, Spreaker) or a database entry (TheHistoryofWWE). The website of his alleged promotion, Showtime Wrestling, is a clear hoax by looking at its talent section and social media feeds. There are two genuine sources, from Courier-Post and Press of Atlantic City, which cover his daughter winning a gymnastics championship—though the former is duplicated and misrepresented as USA Today. I'm unable to verify three sources—the 1990, 1992, and 1998 articles from local news organizations—but those do not seem to be enough to establish notability. Pre  fall  13:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Pre  fall  13:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Pre  fall  13:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  Pre  fall  13:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails the minimum WP:GNG. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  11:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Vanity article and in spades. Just one match with the then WWF where he got in no offense at all and I think the Hammonton News wasn't even being published in 1992 upon a search for it. He has wrestled so it's not quite a hoax, but there's way too much embellishment here. Not a notable wrestler at all. Addicted4517 (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my "hoax" comment is regarding him signing a three-year contract with the World Wrestling Federation in 1993, and founding the Showtime Wrestling promotion. Pre  fall  12:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Minimum will be added to meet requirements. Article does have sources from local and regional newspapers that are offline that are made available in public libraries. The Hammonton News has been a Newspaper for more than a half a century. Commenting that it wasn't even being published in 1992 demonstrates not knowing how long The Hammonton News has been printing for. Please call them to put factual information on a discussion for a page to be deleted. "Hoax" comment for the three-year contract with the World Wrestling Federation was published from an offline publication but I'm unable to find it but did find another one from October 28, 2015 displaying on the front page him holding a Championship Belt from his promotion Arena Kaged Wrestling, now Showtime Wrestling. This will be added to the page as this can be found in The Hammonton News. Providing offline newspaper articles can be located that are not available online. All offline articles are reliable sources from different writers.Georgivac (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have notified the primary editor of the page of potential COI. Looking at their edit history, they have been editing for almost 5 years, and have done zero edits that do not directly relate to this topic. The page was also created by , a clear COI, who has not edited other than about themselves . -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The page was created by and would be a COI but not because only edited other than about themselves as stated already. My contributions to the page is not a COI. It's clearly knowledge from people that discuss the individual that have worked in the wrestling industry with him and sourcing what is found online and offline from newspapers and online articles for the page. I will be making edits to correct what shouldn't be there. He is a notable wrestler, just look at him on Cameo.com, he's at the top of his categories. I'm not saying that's a source but very relevant to his notoriety. He's wrestled and promoted since he started and has sourced information about him that might not meet the requirements but will be removed and the required sources will be added so the page doesn't have to be deleted. Reply with any questions.Georgivac (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your contributions look very much like COI on the grounds that you appear to be well acquainted with the subject. That is a COI if you are editing effectively for him - on his behalf if you like whether he knows about it or not. Cameo.com is not a reliable source for wrestling and even though you haven't used it in the article you need more reliable and independent sources to prove notability. At present, he is not notable and you have no proven him to be so with your consequent edits. You need to provide much better proof of his Pharoah character including notable instances of his work in the ring, and you also need to provide proof of his promotional work in the same terms. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You might not be reading my comment before yours. You claim I appear well acquainted with the subject which is your opinion but not factual. Because I fact check and review a couple of pages, which is good for contributing, doesn't mean I'm acquainted with anyone or a COI. I stated this in the comment above yours. I also stated that cameo.com is not a source but you have brought it up that it's not a reliable source but I have already said that. You have stated earlier about The Hammonton News quoting you here - "I think the Hammonton News wasn't even being published in 1992 upon a search for it" these are your words. Incredible as it was found very fast. Here's your answer and the link http://www.njpa.org/njpa/member_newspapers/atlantic_county_newspaper_group.html. Wow, established in 1924. The paper is still there. If you're questioning the sourcing, I need to question yours as you removed content that a claim you made is untrue. I've added some content and a couple of sources earlier, I'm not sure if that is a problem. Your opinion is different. He is notable. He was just on the Jersey Shore Vacation. It was easy for me to find the Hammonton News facts online and you took away the content and the sourcing because you wanted to. You're not supposed to do that on here. It violates the rules. I like to contribute. If you have a problem with a source, use the talk before doing anything. Your opting for deleting the page while more sourcing is being produced. Please undo what you have removed on the page since you now have learned when the Hammonton News was established. If you don't, it shows you just want the page deleted. Georgivac (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no Hammonton News in 1992. It was the Daily Journal. That is what I found. If the paper was published from 1924 it changed it's name to the Daily Journal at some point, and changed back later. The sourcing was removed because it is faked. That is a legitimate reason. You need to provide proof otherwise - the link you gave is not enough. You have not proven he is notable. Your word is not enough and neither is your evidence thus far. I also frankly do not believe your denial of COI in the terms I mentioned. The onus is on you to prove me wrong. The removal I made remains removed and you can not put it back as it goes against WP:BLP as an unproven claim and controversial. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect stating "There was no Hammonton News in 1992. It was the Daily Journal." Do you know that the Gannett Company owns the Daily Journal and The Hammonton News. Both are news papers for the areas that they cover. You just made a false statement. You can find this online. Your claim about the Hammonton News not being a paper in 1992 is false, as you claim the sourcing was removed because it is faked. That is a violation in itself on this website by you. Don't make false statements and remove something without doing research. By stating "I made remains removed and you can not put it back as it goes against WP:BLP as an unproven claim and controversial." I will not go against WP:BLP. You say I need to prove you wrong. I'm not going to take it from social media pages but if you look close enough it's there and the paper shows it's The Hammonton News. Maybe other members in the community will produce the paper? It will go back up once it's produced and shows my source is accurate and you removed it because you said it's fake. It's doesn't have to but it will have to be proven. Not for you but because you already seem to be biased and it needs to be seen to show that the Hammonton News was there in 1992 and the article I sourced and prove you wrong. I've seen some of your comments to others as it can be seen as being obnoxious. There's no consensus with you. Communicate with facts not false claims when removing content. Contribute the right way. Again, no COI. Many have contributed to the page as I have too and you can see too. You seem to just want it to be removed. That's why someone can click the Watch this page box. Vandalism is a problem and some already on the page would not go for it. HaHaHa, just on the Jersey Shore and you say not proven notable. The sourced newspaper that you claim wasn't there will show it and show he was the Pharaoh in the article.Georgivac (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The current version of the article does not seem promotional to me. A search in Google books reveals that the Hammonton News has been in print since 1923 (see here) and that the 1992 issues can be consulted in microfilm (see here) availability is listed as 1924+ that indicates continuous publishing during that period, so I don't see any valid arguments to sustain the claim that the article is almost a hoax. The third argument was that the images added by the main editor of the article are sourced to a Flickr account by the article subject. This is also no problem. they don't contribute to establishing notability but there is no problem in adding content published by the subject of the article as long as it was published under the right CC license. As far as notability, I see no reason to assume that the offline references are fake and unless proven otherwise WP:GNG would be met as there are multiple independent reliable sources with in depth coverage and the article does not violate WP:ISNOT in its current version. I think WP:AFG prevails. That an editor has a WP:SPA, I think, should not be used as the only argument to assume a WP:COI.
 * If you want other editors to asume good faith you should extend the same courtesy to them. Please carefully read Etiquette, and keep all your comments centered exclusively on content avoiding any personal remarks.
 * As far as the article is concerned, you should add more details to some of the offline citations as a few lack the article title, exact date or page and if possible, the place where an archived copy can be consulted to meet WP:V. Some quotes may also be useful. If those are provided I see no valid reason to delete the article. If you don't know how expand the citations please post the information in the talk page of the article or in my talk page and I can add it myself. If you can't provide any of the additional information required I would not be able to keep my !vote. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have located where the sources are archived. I should be able to have that information if available tomorrow from where they are archived and will provide them. Georgivac (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Non notable local wrestler. Hammonton News is a local suburban newspaper with limited circulation see here for proof that it's local which does nothing for notability. Agree with nom about promotional article. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:8826:7EAA:B135:5C72 (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * — 2001:8003:5999:6D00:8826:7EAA:B135:5C72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - has not won any major awards or trophies or had any significant media coverage - definitely promotional about his daughter - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Requested information has been added for the references by Georgivac, except for one still pending. I have helped in formatting them and neutralized the article by removing excessive details. WP:GNG is met as there are multiple independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. Reliable sources are local, but the guideline does not require that they be at national level. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is in much better shape, good job. With that said, Ricca is still not a notable person. His main claim to notability is a single, minute-long squash match that aired on television. He did not have any other noteworthy matches or periods of work in notable organizations. WrestlingData only has records of five matches he participated in, while the other all-inclusive databases Cagematch and Internet Wrestling Database do not have records of him at all. WP:PWBIO is merely an essay, but it suggests three months of appearances, or 30-plus days of holding a championship, in a notable promotion to be considered notable themselves—Ricca does not come close to meeting these. I'm not sure local news coverage makes up for a general lack of significance. Pre  fall  19:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you . As WP:PWBIO states, even if the first criteria is not met, the subject is considered notable if it meets WP:GNG. For inclusion the subject must meet one or the other or both. The only stated requirement for local sources in WP:PWBIO is that they are clearly independent of the subject. Our primary guideline for determining notability is WP:GNG and since it has been established (by the changes made to the references during this AfD) that the subject has received in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject (even if they are local) and since the article has been neutralized and it does not violate WP:ISNOT, I see no remaining reason based on our policies for deletion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As it stands now, this could easily be closed as delete, but I'm relisting to allow people time to review 's recent updates.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since most of the sourcing is old paper sources it is harder to analyze the sourcing like I normally would. I would expect WP:THREE sources that support WP:SIGCOV. Based on what I can tell right now, some may and some may not support that. Its hard to tell if these are detailed articles or just blurbs, so I am doing my best with the headlines. Here is my analysis.
 * - Sounds to me like he is probably a passing mention
 * - WP:ROUTINE - Cannot be used to support GNG
 * - WP:ROUTINE - Cannot be used to support GNG
 * - Sounds like its WP:ROUTINE to me
 * - About wrestling school not him
 * - Reads like its about the event not about him
 * - Sounds like its WP:ROUTINE to me
 * - My understanding is Huff Po as a WP:NEWSBLOG it can be used to verify certain information, but its not used to support notability.
 * - Its a little hard to determine what really is happening here. Who produced them? What attention in the media. Did he produce them himself and call the press to let them know they were available? Was he just one of 100 wrestlers listed? Without more details I can't say this supports GNG
 * - Writing an article does not count toward GNG
 * - Potentially could be used to support GNG. He is interviewed but its more about what he is doing than him
 * - Sounds to me like it focuses on the daughter, not him, so doesn't support GNG
 * - Sounds to me like it focuses on the daughter, not him, so doesn't support GNG
 * Based on a full analysis the article still fails to include three sources that support GNG. There is 1 source that is about him that to me supports it, and that is just not enough. If you disagree with my assessment please let me know why. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GNG " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" Just from the titles of the articles it's hard to assume that that is the case. I can access the online sources from the Press of Atlantic City as they are blocked for EU viewers.
 * Can you please add some quotes here or explain what do references 1,4,5,6,7,9 and 11 say directly about Tony Ricca? Please do so one by one, stating whether they are a trivial mention or not and why. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Here are the following as requested.

Reference 1 - “Tom Ricca, of the Hammonton Hitmen puts an arm bar on one of the Lords of Darkness” This is a feature photo of him that’s captioned on the main Sports page. “Tom Ricca from Hammonton will be wrestling independently as The Hammonton Hitman” This is a Non-trivial mention as it introduces his pro wrestling debut.
 * This is promotional judging by that quote and therefore not permitted.

Reference 4 - “The first main event matched Hammontonian Tom Ricca (The Pharaoh) against Glen “Madman” “Osbourne. The Pharaoh began his assault on Osbourne with a multitude of forearms and then brought him to the floor with a stifling drop kick to the chest but then the tide changed and the Pharaoh became the recipient of Osbourne’s punishment. The Pharaoh gained back his momentum and pinned Osbourne after a spectacular flying back flip of the top rope” “Ricca, a 1986 graduate of Hammonton High School in his debut as the Pharaoh”. Non-trivial. The Pharaoh debut and main event that included photo of him cornering his opponent on the front cover of the sports page.
 * This is also promotional in the same terms.

Reference 5 - Pictured photo of him “ Tom Ricca, the owner of Powerslam Wrestling School, has wrestled independently against some big names in professional wrestling.” “Ricca had wrestled some of the greats like ‘Hacksaw’ Jim Duggan, the Legion of Doom and in a large number of matches all over the East Coast”. “Powerslam officially opened during the Red, White and Blueberry Festival as the mayor cut the ribbon”. Non-trivial mention. Provides quotes of him as a professional wrestler and owner of his Powerslam Wrestling School with the mayor cutting the ribbon for the official opening of it.
 * Also promotional and blatant embellishment re The Legion of Doom.

Reference 6 - Front page photo of him in the wrestling ring surrounded by caged ceiling, walls and guard rails with studio lighting with an entrance for wrestlers and TV screen above it. “Tom Ricca of Us Studios Productions/AKW Arena shows off the wrestling cage he plans to use in special programing connected to the Internet on Vine Street in Hammonton.” “ Tom Ricca, owner of Arena Kaged Wrestling and US Studios” “Ricca wrestled with World Wrestling Federation early in his wrestling career and also as “The Pharaoh”” “Each match is going to be a month of tapings as each event will include five to 10 matches and at a 10 p.m. time slot and aired on MCN Market Connect Network available on cable systems in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and West Virginia”. Non-trivial mention. States that he wrestled with World Wrestling Federation and also wrestled as The Pharaoh. Photo of him in his promotion Arena Kaged Wrestling. Cable televised matches on MCN Market Connect Network that are previously taped during matches.
 * Yet again, this is promotional per the previous content.

Reference 7 - “The AKW Wrestling is owned by Hammonton’s Tom Ricca” “Some of the AKW matches to be used in possible wrestling movies” “The venue included Captain Lou Albano, Dick Woehrle, Disco Inferno, Pitbull No 1, Big Vito and Daffney to mention a few” Non-trivial mention. Indicates AKW Wrestling is owned by Ricca. AKW matches to be used in possible wrestling movies included the above mentioned wrestlers.
 * Once again, this is promotional.

Reference 9 - Front page photo of Ricca with his AKW Championship Belt on his shoulder and photo of his Action Figure. “Tom Ricca of Hammonton is pictured with one of his Arena Kaged Wrestling Championship belts” “Do you remember The Hammonton Hitman? What about the professional wrestler Tony Ricca or The Pharaoh?””Now is your chance to collect a piece of local celebrity memorabilia. A WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) retro action figure series was recently released of Hammonton resident Tom Ricca, who wrestled professionally under the ring name Tony Ricca””A retro action figure of Tome Ricca, who wrestled in the WWE under the ring name Tony Ricca, is now available” Non-trivial mention. Featured front page picture with one of his AKW championship belts and mention of it. Notes him as The Hammonton Hitman, Tony Ricca and The Pharaoh. Shows a photo of his action figure. Very in-depth article.
 * Blatantly promotional for the action figures.

Reference 11 - This is under the business section online and Headline in the Front page in their newspaper. Photo of Ricca near signage of a group project he started. “Tom Ricca of Hammonton and possible others involved in the effort to promote “Little Italy” in Hammonton” “Tom Ricca is a lot of things: a proud father, a hardworking business owner, an energetic former WWE wrestler, and now, a champion of his town’s Italian heritage””For the past year, Ricca, 50, has been leading a crusade to create a Little Italy in the heart of one of the state’s most Italian towns””Ricca is hoping to change that with a concept that includes signs and banners, a website and an interactive map of the area”. Non-trivial mention. Article includes a photo of a Little Italy Sign with Ricca’s photo on it and mention of him. His wifes business, Cannoli World is located in the building near it. Article shows photos of Ricca at different areas of Little Italy. It shows his community involvement to identify Little Italy. There is a small mention of him as an energetic former WWE wrestler. This is located in the Community section of his page.Georgivac (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Being in the business section is promotional by default. All of the above additions have been made by me, and prove that this person is not notable due to no allowable sources. I withdraw my observation about the Hammonton News as it appears that at the time it was a small local paper that slipped under the radar of regular sourcing. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I think you might be confused on the meaning of trivial, as ( Clarified and changed above by Georgivac ) the quotes above are clearly more than just trivial mentions. WP:GNG states that: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

As shown by the quotes, the information sourced by the references above are not just trivial mentions. They do address the topic directly and with sufficient detail to be able to source the current content of the article without the need of original research, so the significant coverage requirement by multiple sources seems clearly met for this article. A reference in which the subject is not the main topic but includes non-trivial coverage that can be used to source the content does contribute towards establishing notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noticing as I had meant put for the references that they are non-trivial mentions. I recently revised them. Georgivac (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Article meets WP:GNG. Article should include more of what the references show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubleomarks (talk • contribs) 21:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * — Doubleomarks (talk) is a new account that has made few edits before participating in this AfD. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * SPI has been lodged for this account. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed !vote from confirmed puppet of (See Sockpuppet investigations/Georgivac).--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Has no sign of notability, fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Addicted4517 please undo your last edit. As I explained in the edit summary you should not interleave your answers within another editor's comment as per WP:TALKO:

Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. In your own posts you may wish to use the or  templates to quote others' posts.
 * You also incorrectly removed the indentation in one of my answers to Georgivac. Please undo your edit and add your comment bellow mine citing the reference numbers that you want to comment on.
 * Before doing so I recommend that you review again WP:PROMO which you quoted, you will notice that it applies to the content of our articles, not to the content of the reliable sources. Please read WP:BIASED:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
 * Positive reviews from WP:RS, as long as they are independent, are perfectly valid and do contribute towards establishing notability to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Talkto does not apply as this is an exception to that general rule. You need to re-read WP:PROMO as each article quoted from is clearly promoting the subject or the promotion he owns and/or runs. Do not instruct me how to respond to comments. That is uncivil and does nothing to achieve consensus. I will not undo my edit - however if you point out specifically where I erred on the indent of your comment I will fix that.
 * Bottom line - Tony Ricca is not notable. My reasons above have not changed and nothing added has convinced me otherwise. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please explain why is this an exception to that general rule and how it does not fit what is quoted. It does not seem to fit any of the examples listed bellow in WP:TALKO. If you can not justify the reason for your claimed exception based on our policies, I request again for you to please correct it.
 * Regarding your claim of being uncivil, please remember to asume good faith. I am requesting that you follow policy only because I feel that the way you added your comments obscures the understanding of how the discussion is developing and who said what. I do value your contributions to this debate even if I don't share your views. When I make a mistakes I appreciate that other editors take their time to correct me. You should not take my comments as a personal offence, I am definitely not trying to be uncivil, I am just trying to point out the right way to contribute to the discussion.
 * Regarding indentation. I was first to answer to the Georgivac's comment in which you have incorrectly interleaved your replies. It had an indentation to show it was answering that comment. You have put your answer above mine and removed the indentation of my reply. Again, that is not correct.
 * Finally as I tried to explain before WP:PROMO is part of What Wikipedia is not and should be applied exclusively to Wikipedia articles themselves, applying any part of ISNOT to sources is clearly a mistake. Our policies for the reliable sources cited above are explained in WP:RS. The correct policy in this case is WP:BIASED which I quoted and clearly states that independent reliable sources with positive comments are perfectly valid and if they have non-trivial coverage (whether it be positive, negative or neutral) do contribute towards meeting WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non notable. Szzuk (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.