Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJ Atencio

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. Consensus to delete is clear, based on arguments and lack of reliable sourcing; statements that sources are available and reliable lack evidence. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Atencio

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

No evidence of notability - lots of external links which all seem to be about the "hittingpaydirt" service, the only one to mention the name seems to be unreliable source Reddit. PamD 07:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator no indication of notability, seems like just a way for person to get his name out. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search turns up very little, if anything, in the way of reliable, independent sources. The soruces that are provided in the article are either only passing mentions (if that), statistics, or are just plainly unreliable. I should also mention that the article creator has been blocked for disruptive editing. JudgeRM (talk to me) 14:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added sources include LA Times, Las Vegas Review Journal, SmartVoter, among others. Over 12 reputable sources now listed with more to follow. (Avento55 (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
DO NOT DELETE Disagree with nominator. Sources are verifiable. As far as media print, doesn't get much more reputable than the Times and Review Journal.(Paininthegain (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Striking out vote by possible sock/meat puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to exist any secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject that cover the article subject in-depth nor establish notability for this person. My search came back with nothing, and none of the sources listed in the article can be considered reliable either. Therefore, I believe that WP:GNG is definitely not established or met, and this article should be deleted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
""DISAGREE"" Over a dozen sources verify notability. Agree with "Paininthegain", if your debate is the Times and Review Journal are not reputable, you need to do you research. They are two of USA's largest prints. (Avento55 (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Avento55 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. PamD 16:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out vote by possible sock/meat puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DISAGREE DO NOT DELETE I took the time to review each link and found several to be reliable sources. I'm from the west coast (CA, USA) and AJ is a big name in the sports gambling industry. I know sports gambling isn't the biggest genre out there right now but I believe the article serves a purpose. (JamesSPR (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
JamesSPR (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. PamD 16:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC) To be precise, the comment above is his/her first edit. PamD 16:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out vote by possible sock/meat puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, Pam, I am newer here. Are you saying my opinion is less valued because of that? Looks like we have an ego problem going around Wiki. (JamesSPR (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a minor personality in the sports betting space. I cannot find RS on this subject, and the article appears to be promotional in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- the objecting editor has attempted to strike out the "delete" votes: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These painfully-obvious socks are, as they say, painfully obvious. There's no need to strike their comments, nor to quadruple their height by saying why you struck them. That's just antagonizing, and the closing admin, whoever it turns out to be, is not a dolt.
New guy: The way to save this article kept is by presenting nontrivial, reliable sources (nothing in the article is both), not by creating new accounts and making the same baseless assertions over and over. You're not fooling anybody and are only hurting your own case. —Cryptic 04:06, 14 August 2016 (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.