Deletion of Tony Ricca

Comment: 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 (https://books.google.es/books?id=YeVCAAAAIAAJ&q=%22Hammonton+News%22&dq=%22Hammonton+News%22&hl=es&sa=X&redir_esc=y see here) and that the 1992 issues can be consulted in microfilm (https://books.google.ecom/books?id=lDsbAQAAMAAJ&q=%22Hammonton+News%22+1992&dq=%22Hammonton+News%22+1992 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  would be met as there are multiple independent reliable sources with in depth coverage and the article does not violate  in its current version. I think  prevails. That an editor has a , I think, should not be used as the only argument to assume a 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ISNOT||WP:AFG||WP:SPA||WP:COI)