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. Overwhelming consensus that this boxer does not meet notability guidelines. This follows on from the previous AfD that though, more marginal, also closed as 'delete'. Just Chilling (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Concepcion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Essentially the same article that resulted in a deletion decision at the previous AfD discussion. The same concerns about WP:NBOX and general notability of a local sportsperson prevail. There has been a voice that NBOX itself may be contested, though the guidelines stand to date. Also, the author is a likely sockpuppet of the original autor who may be editing in circumvention of a block. An SPI case has been raised. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's word-for-word identical, and has no new references or even external links. Should be speedied. —Cryptic 17:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Speedy was declined. The original AfD is also in review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Martin_Concepcion Paisarepa (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Creator was blocked as a suspected sock of Qualitee123. See case in nom. Paisarepa (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The procedure here has gotten interesting with the original AfD at DRV and now multiple speedy deletion criteria met (G4, G5) - I noted at the DRV it's probably best to speedy delete this again, if the DRV comes back with an overturn we can deal with that as it happens. (As an aside, I did just remove a copy-pasted paragraph from the article.) SportingFlyer T·C 04:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I wasn't in favour of deletion in the original AfD, but this is a clear case for G4 speedy delete as it's identical to the deleted version. --Michig (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sock is confirmed, blocked and tagged which also puts this in reach of G5 speedy now. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G5. So tagged. Reyk _YO! 10:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Reyk, I declined your CSD nomination. The blocked user only created this article, and since then there have been enough edits by other users to say that G5 does not apply. Please read WP:CSD#G5. Thanks. Masum Reza^📞 12:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Which edit was substantial? Was it the one that removed a copyvio, or the one that unlinked the reposted and now redeleted image from Commons? —Cryptic 12:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec) Well, that's a bit condescending to insist I didn't read WP:G5. There had been no substantial edits to the article after it was created; the only edits were deletion nominations and a copyvio removal. These do not disqualify it from G5. Neither does the idea that the banned user didn't create any other articles. That's not in G5 anywhere, and in any case it is wrong because they also re-created Kevin_Concepcion and Tony Concepcion, which were also deleted. Reyk _YO! 12:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no substantial edits by anyone but the banned user. That's now two correct speedy deletion tags that should not have been removed. --Michig (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- well, since WP:G4 and WP:G5 speedies have been declined on frivolous grounds we'll have to do this the long way. The first AfD found that there was not enough substantial, reliable sourcing to sustain this article. The new incarnation, started by a sockpuppet of a banned editor, is largely identical to the deleted version except for the removal of a copyright violation. Obviously the situation regarding notability hasn't changed since last time, and looking at the state of the sourcing I think the previous AfD got it right. Reyk _YO! 12:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The first AfD wasn't great, but it was only a few months ago and is still good law. The re-created article is substantially similar to the first one, and was re-created by a sockpuppet. Either G4 or G5 would have been appropriate here, but a second strong AfD will settle the matter. Mackensen (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• IAR Delete. I have no particular opinion on WP:N, but the objections to WP:G4 and WP:G5 are just plain silly. This clearly meets both of those, so adding my !vote to delete as a protest against excessive wikilawyering. I would delete this myself under those grounds, but letting this AfD run to its obvious conclusion will leave a more clear consensus for the future. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• cluster The G4 and G5 appear to be valid. That said, the sources in the article appear to easily clear the GNG bar. Policy says delete for the G4 and G5. Which means the right thing to do, IMO, is for someone else to write an article which is substantially different. Which is dumb as the current article is actually quite good. G4 and G5 exist for good reasons. But in this case, it deletes an article which meets the GNG and is actually pretty well written. Hobit (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, change that to redirect to [1]. At least it provides some coverage. Hobit (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A redirect there would violate WP:ASTONISH. Most of that section should be removed per WP:NOTPLOT besides, and certainly on neutrality grounds - "the courageous Concepcion" indeed. —Cryptic 20:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might, but if it's what he is best known for, maybe not. And I'd disagree on NOTPLOT, we have much more detailed plot summaries in featured articles. Those are quite short summaries and short plot summaries are exactly what is desired. Hobit (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete procedurally as this should have been a WP:G4/WP:G5 and Delete on WP:GNG grounds - I agree with the delete !voters in the first AfD, specifically Papaursa's vote, on the quality of the sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 19:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G4 & G5. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as G4 and G5. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G4 and G5. Doesn't meet NBOX or GNG, this is a waste of time. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD G4 and G5. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if you choose to not use G4 or G5, he still doesn't meet any notability criteria. This was pointed out at the previous AfD discussion. He wasn't notable then and, as a retired fighter, he's not going to become more notable. Papaursa (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comment. Masum Reza^📞 20:38, 23 July 2019 (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.