Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SANTO GOLD

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. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SANTO GOLD

Article about a singer/performer/mail order businessman/informercial star of dubious notability, written in an somewhat advertorial tone. Not to be confused with the indie rock singer Santogold, this Santo Gold (aka Santo V. Rigatuso, Bob Harris) already has a mention on Wikipedia as the producer of Blood Circus, a film-come-infomercial of very minor cult status (Googling on "santo gold" & "blood circus" yields only a few hundred results, few if any of which seem suitable for verifying a biography on this guy). The bottom line is that without the existence of sources of an independent and reliable nature, Santo Gold does not merit an article. H.G. 18:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your definition of "Dubious Notability". HERE [1] is a plethora of information as to his notability. He was one of the first people to utilize late night infomercials to hock his product. And without him you'd not have the Santogold entry here in Wikipedia.

However bad he is or what he has done, most people over 35 recall this guy, the product, and the movie Blood Circus from those ridiculous commercials.

Why not try to improve the article rather than delete it.--Feddx (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think geocities is WP:RS?:) He has a fraud conviction, [2] if the article is kept that could be mentioned for WP:NPOV. Sticky Parkin 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(@Feddx, after edit conflict) The Geocities website doesn't attest to notability. On Wikipedia, notability is measured in terms of nontrivial coverage in independent and reliable sources; a self-published website from someone with no special expertise in the area does not count as reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. H.G. 20:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete/speedy- this could actually have been speedied as advertising. The only google mentions for "santo rigatuso" -all 8 of them [3] are for his convictions or fines. The same for the extra five entries for his jewellery business- [4] all 13 0f them are about scandals surrounding them/him, or one which is an advert. Sticky Parkin 20:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No.... but I do think legal documents from a court case in US vs Rigatuso are (see here[[5]]).

You cannot deny that he WAS on TV across the nation. I still meet people to this day that saw the commercials in California and Florida. I'm saying I'm sure there is a lot of information out there on this guy (also known as Santo V. Rigatuso, or Bob Harris). The article needs citations and information. So instead of just deleting the article because you don't know who he is, let people who have heard of him they to expand the article.

Just a cursory online search yields: [[6]], [[7]], and a lot more.

Also does anyone know why User:SANTO_GOLD redirects to SANTO_GOLD? And why you cannot get to User:SANTO_GOLD's Talk page?--Feddx (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an editor called 'Santo Gold" worked on the article on his user page, then redirected it to move it to main encyclopedia space when he finished it to his satisfaction. It doesn't matter how many people remember or have heard of him, he's barely mentioned in WP:RS. Blood Circus is slightly more well known, but it has its own article and Santo's not notable independent of it. Sticky Parkin 20:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many people have heard of him or remember him? Did you really just write that? If there were no humans on the planet (wow wouldn't that be nice) then yes, I'd agree that the only thing that mattered was a paper trail and documentation of all of his works. But if people know who he is, isn't that what makes him notable? People write articles, record documents, update and READ Wikipedia.

As for the movie, I've never seen it, have you? I've seen his infomercials though, as did thousands of others in the 80's. I'd say Santo Gold is more notable than the movie Blood Circus. For his woeful commericals and probably inferior product more than anything else.

The article as it was written sucked to be sure. So instead of improving it, you just want to delete it. I disagree with that philosophy. People do know who he is, there is documentation as to his notability (I've not the time or resources right now to find them, but I've read a few articles over the years about him, so I know they exist). And if you know who he is.... Why shouldn't there be a decent article about this guy.

KEEP but only with a giant overhaul.--Feddx (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen the film, (I'm not a film/indie film person) but I know people who have, and have it in their video collection, people who like films such as Performance. The film is mentioned more in WP:RS than Santo is. Yes I have argued in the past on the AfD for Lauren Harries that people's memories can count, however she'd also got herself mentioned in papers etc, and it counts for more on Wikipedia that WP:RS have considered someone notable. I've not heard of this bloke's infomercials, but then I'm in the UK. If it really is the bloke himself who made this article, I don't think he considered the repercussions, as for WP:NPOV the fate of his businesses/the court cases could be mentioned, and no doubt some dodgy people, or even people who lost money will change the article at some point to include that. There's grounds to delete the article out of compassion for a living person. Sticky Parkin 23:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at best userfy for Feddx to perform his/her overhaul. Subject/article fails the notability and verifiability criteria for inclusion, has various "deliberate misinformation and/or unsourced claims" in direct violation of vandalism and WP:BLP concerns. Article as it stands doesn't belong and "beyond repair" as far as I can tell. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an advertisement. However, I must note that at the Blood Circus article, I got into an edit war with someone who was or was employed by Santo Gold, turning it into an advertisement page and an attack page on the indie rock musician Santogold (who Rigatuso had sued for stealing his name). These are the edits made by the user (Jetrac843, note similar syntax to the person who wrote the "Santo Gold" article): here he removes most of the article to make way for an advertisement, here he moves "Blood Circus" to "SANTO GOLD", where he deletes what's left of the original article. Here, I revert the revisions made, and redirect the page back but here he reverts my reversion, and I undo his reversion. I believe that Jetrac843 and SANTO GOLD are either the same editor or someone employed by Rigatuso or possibly Rigatuso himself. I suggest a merge of whatever's salvageable to Blood Circus, redirect SANTO GOLD back to Santogold (who meets WP:MUSIC, as she is a charting musician on Billboard's Modern Rock Tracks chart and the UK Singles Chart, and would be a likely redirect target). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redir What a mess, and I'm not even talking about the content of the nominated article. Santo gold and Santo Gold (notice the capitalization) already have long-standing redirects to Blood Circus, whereas Santogold is a wholly different subject. Was going to just do a redir myself until I noticed that Santogold thingy, so someone else can make the choice. Either that, or just Delete this, since it's utterly beyond salvage in it's current incarnation. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:38, 24 September 2008 (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.