Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Shavershian (2nd nomination)

Aziz Shavershian

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Aziz Shavershian
• Articles for deletion/Aziz Shavershian (2nd nomination)

Aziz Shavershian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Aziz "Zyzz" Shavershian is not an individual who is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Shavershian is only known to the general public for one reason: the way that the Sydney Morning Herald, his local newspaper, turned his untimely death into a field day and kept going back to his death for months. The first reason he was mentioned by the Herald was because his brother was arrested for possession of anabolic steroids a month prior to his death. It seems that from that point on, whenever the Herald, or other Australian news media, want to discuss steroid abuse they reference Shavershian. While I am aware that there are a large number of references on the article, most of the sources are about his death and are being used as citations to minutiae about his life, such as his college grades or his family's history. This whole thing seems like a rerun of the Corey Delaney debacle, in which another person gained a lot of press in a short period of time, but it was ultimately decided that the things that made him get mentioned in the press did not make him notable. To quote a reason from 2008, the "sources merely establish the facts in the article. They do not establish notability."

In the previous AFD, it was also stated that Shavershian is an Internet personality, and his large number of Facebook fans/friends is a metric by which we should include him (WP:ENTERTAINER was cited). If he was truly notable for his Internet following, the English Wikipedia would have had an article on him prior to his death in early August 2011. Instead, his death, and the undue weight it was given in the Australian press was only used as an excuse to make an article two weeks later. In addition, being the 6th highest death-related searched name on Google Australia does not seem like it is any actual sort of achievement.

Another thing brought up to support his notability was that he has a book, a protein line, and appears in a web series. As far as I am aware, anyone can publish a book. The protein line using his image as advertising does not seem like it's truly something to use as a metric for notability. And this web series he appeared in is in production hell and has never seen the light of day except for a 3 minute pilot/preview. He is a model who represents nothing, other than the strip club he worked at. He is a bodybuilder who never won any competitions.

It's been two weeks since the first AFD closed. The only thing that's changed since then is that MelbourneStar found a news article on some German website that he believes is a reliable source to change the word "celebrity" to "personality" in the lead paragraph, and that I removed excessive categories that he frankly does not fit in.

As I know I have written 4 paragraphs on the matter. I have done this so I do not feel the need to flood the page with comments. So here's the short version. The individual known as "Zyzz" is not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia because:

1. He is only notable for one event, and that event is his death. And his death is not a notable event unto itself that would require a re-haul of the article.
2. None of the sources used in the article actually establish the fact that "Zyzz" is notable. They are only used to establish the information in the article. Yes, he received a lot of news coverage. But coverage does not beget notability; i.e. Corey Delaney.
3. The internet following "Zyzz" has is not a metric by which we determine notability. If "Zyzz" was truly notable for this reason, we would have covered him before his death.
4. Anyone can publish a book. A protein line is not a means of determining notability. A television/web pilot does not show notability.

"Zyzz" had no lasting impact on society, or the Internet. It is only because of his fans that his name lingers around, and because he is an easy example for the Australian press to use so they can say "don't use steroids". —Ryulong (竜龙) 07:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And finally, to those of you who may be notified of this on BodyBuilding.com, 4chan's Health and Fitness board, or one of the multitude of Zyzz fan pages on Facebook, decisions are made on Wikipedia based on merit of the comments and not a majority vote.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Keep Notable enough for major news sources to cover his death. [1] [2] [3] [4] Other things about him include [5] "The death of Zyzz, a 22-year-old amateur bodybuilder and showman from Carlingford with a cult online following, was only narrowly out-searched by the death of Apple founder Steve Jobs." And he did get coverage BEFORE his death. [6] All the news sources say he had quite a cult following which means he meets the second item of WP:NMODEL "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Dream Focus 16:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Note the last one ended at 12 March 2012 with 17 people saying keep and four agreeing with the nominator and saying delete. Dream Focus 13:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Its actually rather ridiculous that this has been nominated so close to the original one. I agree with the rational given by Dream Focus and also at this time he is notable and as notability is permanent he always should be.Edinburgh Wanderer 13:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The article's subject meets WP:GNG. I dispute the nominator's rationales. Point 1 is not correct, but it is correct to say that most third-party coverage of various events in his life began at his death. The reporting itself was not primarily on his death. For point 2 I think that the information in the article establishes notability in several ways, such as how Dream Focus describes above. Point 3 includes two rationales which I do not see as related. I agree with the first one - general Internet popularity is not supporting evidence of notability. I disagree with the second rationale - a lack of coverage before death is not a legitimate reason for deletion. If a person gets significant media coverage about their life at the time of death that does not mean that the person is only notable for their death; factors defining notability over a long period of time but which are only published at one time because of a particular event do not count as a single transient event, but rather describe persistent notability. His death notices include information which indicates a history of meeting notability criteria for reasons unrelated to his death. I agree with the nominator's point 4 - the self-publishing is not a factor in determining notability.
  I will say that the article's subject did not have enough media coverage to indicate notability before his death - the nominator is correct about that. I would say that before his death he failed WP:V and therefore could not be tested for WP:N, but once he passed V then he passed N for reasons unrelated to the death event. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• While I initially planned to keep away from responding to people, I find that in this situation it is warranted. Edinburgh Wanderer and Dream Focus, there was no restriction on when I could start a new AFD. The last one closed as "no consensus...No prejudice to an immediate renomination with less WP:BATTLEGROUND," and I am attempting this here. I waited 2 weeks instead of re-opening one immediately.
  The individual known as "Zyzz" has not had any sort of persistent notability in life. So why has it been afforded to him in death? Why are we, as the English Wikipedia, allowing this individual to have an article, when we have in the past forbidden articles on people who are only known for one particular event? The coverage on "Zyzz" lasted for a week and a half. For whatever reason, he received a mention in this opinion piece about steroid abuse in September, another in this steroid abuse article in November, and equally passing mentions in these two "Top Searched Items of 2011" articles (#1, #2), and this general look back on 2011 article, most of which concern his local city's newspaper. Even though Dream Focus points out the various Australian news sources mentioning he has died, I still find it extremely disconcerting that he was in no way considered worthy of news coverage by anyone in Australia prior to his death. There has been a lot said about him, but none of it says what he did made him important. His death was not unique. If his brother had not gotten arrested a week or two before, no one in Australia would have known about him.
  Again, why has the coverage of his death afforded him notability? This is by definition, WP:1E, and, again, I bring up that this is an unfortunate repeat of what happened with Corey Delaney in 2008. He was the subject of a media field day, but we determined that even though what he did garnered coverage at the time, he had no impact overall. The same can be said of "Zyzz". He did not do anything in life that made him notable. And his death is not a unique enough event that it is notable unto itself.—Ryulong (竜龙) 16:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for re-opening this. I support your decision and I appreciate the time you took to organize such a good case for deletion. All of what you presented are reasonable arguments which I think are better presented now than they were in the first AfD. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  What does an AFD from years ago about a guy only notable because of a party he threw, have to do with this case here? If reliable sources state he had a "cult following", then he passes WP:ENTERTAINER, as I pointed out before and then again in this debate already. I honestly see no reason to just have the same discussion again, everyone already saying what they had to before hand. The fact that you and one other guy argued back and forth constantly, filling the page with length, should not be a reason for the strange closing statement of that administrator. Dream Focus 18:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  Because Delaney and Shavershian have the same level of importance and notability, as far as I can determine. There is no restriction on when AFDs can or could be filed. This is going to be a new discussion. I have made all of my statements regarding how I feel that the article is not worth keeping, which I clearly did not in the first discussion. Just because you don't like the closing administrators remarks does not mean I am not allowed to enforce policy on this article. And I stated in my arguments, a "cult following" and a month obsessing over a death does not make notability. If he truly had a cult following that made him notable, he would have been notable for inclusion before his death. The fact the Australian press mentioned him should not be the excuse to have this obituary on Wikipedia. The article does not say he did anything to make him notable because there was nothing he did that was notable, except, apparently, for his death. And, I think I missed this, but just because information can be verified does not mean it makes the subject of that information notable.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  There may be no restrictions but whats changed in two weeks the answer is nothing. Also replying to every single comment isn't helpful. You appeared to do that in the last one as well. You mentioned WP:BATTLEGROUND thats what will happen, take a step back and let it play out either way. I never took part in the original one but the subject perfectly notable to me.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  I have only made this one comment tree to create discussion on the !votes that seemingly say I should not have another AFD so soon. I have put forward an extensive argument on the matter, and my argument has been dismissed because it is too soon since a no consensus decision that allowed for a renomination. I have covered all of the bases from the previous discussion, and now the opposition is based on the fact I have waited 2 weeks instead of a month or a year.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: He appears to pass WP:GNG based on sources cited in the original AfD. Several newspaper references. --LauraHale (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Article nominator contacted me on IRC to discuss merits of WP:GNG and how the nominator feels the topic does not meet that as they have a connection to the person involved. I'm not invested in this particular topic. I'm not going to be really inclined to change a vote because beyond what I did for my original vote, I don't feel a need to do more research. I did feel it worth noting the nominator did. I told them twice I was not interested in discussing this further and the Ryulong replied back to offer me evidence of some one's odd actions. I thought the article pass WP:GNG the first time and I see no reason to do much more research beyond that. --LauraHale (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  While I admit I had this discussion, I do not know what you mean by my "[having] a connection to the person involved". I certainly did not state that in the messages I sent you, nor did I even imply that.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• I voted delete last time, and stand by that: this guy doesn't meet the notability criteria. However, re-listing this article for deletion within days of the last discussion being closed as 'keep' is pretty pointless, especially as any off-Wiki canvassing will still be active. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - I won't write an essay as to why this article should obviously be kept, however that said, this article satisfies WP:GNG; according to sources has merits to pass WP:NMODEL (#2) - and those news sources have given him overwhelming coverage, and ultimately notability. It's one event - minus the videos; the drug story prior death; bodybuilding; cult following; book; protein line; webseries, and so on. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 22:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep  Using WP:ATD, an argument for deletion must explain either (1) that the topic would not be kept as a redirect at RfD, or (2) that there is objectionable material in the edit history, including the current version, that should be removed from public view.  I have examined the nomination statement and see none, so we start without an argument for deletion.  It is pretty well conceded that there are sufficient reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG.  WP:GNG itself explains that a multiplicity of sources does not make a topic "worthy of notice".  But having conceded that the topic satisfies WP:GNG, the many arguments about ways in which the topic is not "notable", fail to address the key remaining point which is, is the topic "worthy of notice".  This is the point at which the nomination argument must be read in the spirit in which it was intended.  But I'm not buying it, this is one of the reasons that we use WP:GNG, to avoid second-guessing people who get paid for having opinions, as to whether the topic was really "worthy of notice".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  If I may, I'm not sure I follow your logic. You first suggest that because I do not provide any alternatives to deletion, that means I do not have an argument that the page should be deleted. I believe I have provided said arguements to this fact, as well as consistent phrasing that claims that the subject is indeed not "worthy of notice", another statement you seem to say that I have not included in my proposal. Would you mind clarifying? Because it would seem that you are implying that anyone who receives any amount of coverage in news media qualifies for WP:GNG, and therefore examining their notability under the more specific guidelines (such as WP:1E, or others) is invalid and unnecessary.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Much of that response would be to quote text from the nutshell and lede of WP:N, but also the part of WP:GNG that says that passing WP:GNG is not sufficient to satisfying WP:N.  I consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/33550336 to be an interesting case in which the community agreed that the topic passed WP:GNG, but still rejected keeping the topic as a stand-alone article.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That's part of what I was asking for clarification on, but there's also the other statement you made. To me, it seems that because I do not suggest that the content of this article cannot be put onto another article, because it cannot be used as a valid search term for another article, or because it does not contain objectionable material, the article should not be deleted. Surely, you must know that just because I provide no alternates (or I do not suggest that there are no alternates) that this page could still be deleted. Sure, everyone is automatically seeing the 27 references and dismissing my proposal on the basis of "if it meets WP:GNG it must be qualified for coverage". I believe that this article is an odd case, akin to the Corey Delaney article from 2008. He was picked up by news outlets that, apparently, would garner him an article in the current atmosphere that this discussion is showing. However, we must still examine the sources used, and ask if they really show he is notable. Merely being the focus of a week or two of coverage in a local newspaper (or being a human interest story in a national paper) should not be something to say "he must be notable".—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed "Corey Delaney" and see a long history, but since the articles have been deleted, I don't know what the issue was.  I looked at this source, which by itself is half-way to establishing notability.  Once you have two articles in reliable sources about a topic, or multiple sources that are the equivalent, you need to look for something in WP:NOT or a copyright vio to get it outright deleted.  With 27 reliable sources, WP:GNG is easily met, and even an argument that the topic is not notable because it is not "worthy of notice" just gets you to a merge, unless you can convince others that there is no place to merge the material.  Do you really think it unnecessary to analyze the alternatives to deletion?  That all the work that went into that article can just be put in a body bag and dropped off the side of a ship and declared "buried at sea" due to lack of notability?  I'm not sure that I can even characterize what it is that troubles you about these sources.  Possibly yellow journalism?  That "the world at large" has not taken notice "over a period of time"?  That the newspapers are quietly giving attention to something related to the apparent topic, including their own self-interest, so that the notability (that which attracts attention) does not directly inure to the bodybuilder?  It feels like you are trying what is known by lawyers as the "shotgun" approach, throw everything you've got at the target and see what sticks.  Anyway, I recognize that the closing admin closed the previous AfD as No consensus WP:NPASR.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Corey Delaney was an Australian youth who had a house party that caused A$20,000 in damages. Naturally, this garnered press attention. It was ultimately decided that the party and the individual were not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia and the articles were deleted, and recreated and deleted ad infinitum. This led to our development of the current WP:1E and WP:BLP1E guidelines. It is under these guidelines that I am suggesting, per WP:NTEMP, that we have a "re-assessment of the evidence of notability" of Mr. Shavershian. Most are only looking at WP:GNG, when the more specific guidelines should be used to assess the page, as it is my opinion that Mr. Shavershian is only widely known because of his death and because of his connections to anabolic steroid abuse in Australia (his alleged use and the arrest of his brother for possession). None of this truly makes him unique enough that garners him any coverage on Wikipedia, but from what I can tell it is your opinion that just because the page does not have content that is deleterious to the project (copyright violations, libelous material, etc.) or if because there is no where else on the project to cover the subject matter, that we should not delete the page. Why is it that because the page is not harmful to the project or because there are no alternatives to deleting the page that we should delete this page?—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that WP:BLP1E is applicable to the living person's death?  Doesn't that by definition mean that the "living" part no longer applies?  If you look at WP:1E, you will see that you are arguing that we should be covering the death of the bodybuilder instead of the bodybuilder.  And also regarding the WP:1E part, did he get 80,000 fans because he died?  As to using SNGs instead of GNG, if you read the lede of WP:N, you will see that if a topic satisfies WP:GNG it doesn't matter if it satisfies a SNG and vice versa.  Not having a place to merge a non-notable topic is a reason to delete both the reliable material and the redirect/title.  I don't plan to respond further here.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that WP:BLP1E applied in this situation (although it might, considering BLP itself affects the recently dead). I said that it and WP:1E were created as a result of the similar situation in 2008 where a lot of news coverage popped up for Corey Delaney. Also, I am not suggesting that an article be made on Mr. Shavershian's death rather than on himself, as it is in my opinion that neither subject is worthy of a Wikipedia article based on the guidelines we have. If he had not died, this article, essentially an article about drugs and steroid abuse in Sydney, probably would have been the only reliable source to ever cover him. Why should the coverage of his death, or his continued usage as an example for steroid abuse in the Sydney media, qualify him for notability?—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, again. This is what I wrote last time, "Just look at the references already used in the article. The guy has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and the coverage is for more than just his death. Meets the general notability guideline with ease, and probably a bunch of SNGs to boot." My opinion has not changed in the two weeks since the last discussion ended. Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, per Dream Focus and others. If someone was notable for even just one day, he's notable forever. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep When I see an article nominated for AfD a second time, especially within two weeks, I expect to see a detailed explanation of what has changed since the last time to justify the second nomination. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  The previous nomination was closed as no consensus, so that shouldn't be an issue so long as this one can come to a consensus one way or another. Indeed, the closing admin specifically said 'No prejudice to an immediate renomination with less WP:BATTLEGROUND', so... well, you know. Only thing that really needs to have changed is what's happening on the nomination page itself, and with any luck the battegroundness should be over now. — Isarra (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per WP:DEL, " It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". Warden (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  Colonel Warden, if you read Isarra's comment directly above yours, a comment I made earlier on in the discussion, and the close on the previous discussion, TParis stated that there was "No prejudice to an immediate renomination with less WP:BATTLEGROUND" because he closed it as "no consensus", not as "keep".—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This again? Subject clearly passes GNG. A412 (Talk • C) 22:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I've had more than a little interest in this article for quite a while since MelbourneStar, an editor from my adoption programme, worked so hard to get it into a decent state. At the start I thought he was wasting his time, because I too thought the subject non-notable. However, having reviewed the sources provided, I do think that he meets the GNG and is deserving of an article.
  Interestingly, the area that he has found fame - "internet personality" - is something I think we handle badly on wikipedia, because the concept is so new. With actors and musicians, we've seen so many rise and fall over the years that we can clearly see what it means to be notable, but with new internet celebrities we have a much more difficult job. If we did have an "internet celebrity" criteria, Zyzz would fit very well into it. He did have a cult following - especially in Australia (remember we're a worldwide encyclopedia). All in all, I'm persuaded by the merits of the article that it should be kept. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Although I think the claim to notability is rather tenuous, the fact remains that he easily passes GNG and there is a credible assertion of notability in the article. That alone is enough to get him over the line. The fact that he passes one or more loosely-applicable guidelines (such as WP:ENT)) is icing on the cake.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per massive public interest in this person, and per extensive coverage, passing GNG several times over. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep: On grounds that wikipedia is here forever, 2 weeks is not enough time for "no consensus" to change. Write 100 articles, come back and test this one then after a year or two.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Snow Keep -- for a whole whack of reasons:
  • Nominator asserted in the very long nomination: "...It seems that from that point on, whenever the Herald, or other Australian news media, want to discuss steroid abuse they reference Shavershian." Well heck, that sounds like a good reason for the wikipedia to cover him. Wikipedia readers, who read a Sydney Morning Herald article about steroids, and wonder who this Shavershian guy is may look him up, and see if our article can explain why Australian newspapers keep mentioning him.
  • With regard to WP:1E, I'll see your Corey Delaney and raise you a Chesley Sullenberger. Nominator argues that it Aziz had been notable, prior to his death, he would already have had an article. If you look at the first 50 edit to that article you will see deletionists arrived early and were determined to get that article deleted, as merely a "one event". I spent about an hour and a half looking for references to Sullenberger that predated his heroic landing on the Hudson River. I found references to four elements that supported Sullenberger being considered notable, prior to the landing. So, were they sufficient? Maybe. But if they merely brought him to the borderline of notability, the massive coverage of him, following the landing, clearly pushed him over. Not ever person who would pass our notability criteria already has an article and I am surprised that our nominator would suggest differently. Furthermore, there are lots of individual who are of borderline notability, or slightly below borderline notability, who will be boosted well over that borderline, by a sufficiently well covered event. Sullenberger may have been one of them, and so was Aziz.
  • No offense to our nominator, but I think I have seen similar arguments before. It seems our nominator is arguing not so much that Aziz is notable -- rather that he shouldn't be notable -- without regard to the significant number of WP:RS that have covered him. No offense, but it seems like one big example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  Capt. Sullenberger played a major role in a major event, and it would not be helpful to fill US Airways Flight 1549 with information regarding Sullenberger's life. Shavershian is a so-called Internet celebrity/personality whose status in that field did not warrant him coverage prior to his death, which is the only event he was involved in and that most certainly does not warrant its own coverage. I can't see anything in the article, as written, that explains why he is notable. It just makes a claim that he is, and uses the 20 news articles made that are about or reference his death to hide behind WP:GNG. What is it about his death that makes him notable?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I am sorry you weren't able to understand my point about Sullenberger.

  1. Didn't you assert: "If "Zyzz" was truly notable for this reason, we would have covered him before his death"?
  2. Do you really think we have articles about everyone who meets our notability rules?
  3. You didn't look at those first fifty edits to the Sullenberger article, as I suggested, did you? A bunch of dedicated deletionists gathered at the newly started Sullengerger article, trying to get it deleted, claiming the exact "one event" justification you claimed.
  4. Sullenberger was a counter example to your claim that we already have articles on everyone who meets our notability criteria. I found he had already been notable -- prior to the historic landing.
  5. Australian newspapers refer to him using terms like "popular", "well-known", etc.
  6. He has had "on-going coverage". That RS coverage was in sufficient detail to flesh out a long and well-referenced article.
  7. I am not totally unsympathetic to your position. There are topics I hate too -- homeopathy and iridology for instance -- But I am a grown up, and realize there are RS that cover those topics. So I keep my hands off.

  You didn't acknowledge the first point I made. That Australian newspapers keep referring to Aziz, whenever they cover steroid abuse, confirms his notability, rather than eroding it as you claimed. Becoming the poster boy for steroid abuse shows he transcended that "one event". Geo Swan (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  1) Yes, I did assert that, because before his death he definitely was not notable, and I find that the coverage stemming from his death does not really change that fact. 2) No, do I do not think that. I just think that in this case "Zyzz" was never notable and the general notability guidelines are forcing us to keep a subpar page. 3) At the time, those actions were probably warranted. 4) The same has not been said of "Zyzz. 5) Subjective. 6) The ongoing coverage was for a few days after his death and passing mentions in various articles months later. 7) I do not necessarily hate the topic. I just find it hard to believe that the community as a whole apparently believes that the coverage he received means anything, considering we have deleted articles for players in such minor events before.

  I also don't truly believe he's really a posterboy for steroid abuse because it was only alleged on his behalf, considering he died from a congenital heart defect and not his heart exploding from all of the HGH and/or synthetic testosterone he allegedly used. This piece from January discusses him for a total of 4 sentences and is used because it says he has a Facebook following. This piece from November has the exact same level of coverage and is used to cite a similar statement. This radio story uses him as a jumping off point for discussing abuse, and this is an opinion column that is being used to source someone alleging he used steroids. Does this really constitute becoming a poster boy for the dangers of steroid use? And do these 4 entries extend his notability beyond the 16 articles that just say he died?—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. Placing "definitely" in front of an opinion does not convert it to a fact. This is an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT
  2. You don't believe it, but you did write it, didn't you?
  3. Nope.
  4. We have a fuzzy boundary for notability. If someone had tried to creat an article on Aziz, prior to his death, using the references then, there would almost certainly have been challengers who said "These references are sufficient for him to merit an entry in List of Australian bodybuilders, but are not sufficient to merit an article of his own." But if, for the sake of argument, he only approached notability, prior to his death, wouldn't the substantial coverage of his death at a surprisingly young age have pushed him across that fuzzy boundary?
  5. You write "subjective". Yes, these are judgment calls. The subjective judgment of writers in WP:RS count, your personal judgment and my personal judgment don't count. This can be galling, when we think the topic is something we know about, and we disagree with professional writers and commentators. But living with the judgment of RS when we think they are dopes is one of the costs of participating here.
  6. In the nomination you wrote "turned his untimely death into a field day and kept going back to his death for months." But in your response above you wrote "The ongoing coverage was for a few days after his death and passing mentions in various articles months later." Aren't you contradicting yourself?
  7. You write "I just find it hard to believe that the community as a whole apparently believes that the coverage he received means anything" -- isn't this classic WP:IDON"TLIKEIT.

  Again, didn't you write "turned his untimely death into a field day and kept going back to his death for months." That is merely one of your comments which I think it is fair to paraphrase you as complaining newpapers made him the posterboy for steroid abuse. Again, sorry, but it seems your complaints all boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  I'm sorry that I don't think his death warrants him inclusion. The coverage that lasted for a couple of days after his death, garnering 16 news stories, and 4 mentions months later that use his alleged use of steroids as either a jumping off point (only in one article) to discuss steroids or give him as an example even though nothing was proven seems to define WP:BIO1E. In life, he was a nobody who posted on some bodybuilding forums and had thousands of Facebook friends. It just seems that if he had not died, he would have remained under the radar and never received an article. His death is not a polarizing event in history or a world-renowned event, unless you happen to be a member of a couple of websites. I will admit that I do not like the internet persona that is Mr. Shavershian. But my arguments come from the fact that I just do not think our guidelines allow for an article on him.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment 16 comments to keep. Maybe 2 to delete (including nom). Can we SNOW keep yet? A412 (Talk • C) 02:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  It's only been 72 hours. If that happens I will go to DRV so fast heads will spin.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The previous AfD was closed by the administrator with the hopes that any future ones would be less of a battleground. However, given that all of the previous participants (even the sock IPs) have been notified of this discussion, and multiple participants have chosen to ignore the admin's comments about NPASR and incorrectly call for a speedy keep, I don't think this one stands much of a chance of going anywhere either.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  I do find it disconcerting that Dream Focus decided to notify everyone that the AFD was restarted (including all of the one-shot IP addresses who came by because of the other websites; why the hell did he do that). And even moreso that we're getting the anons and newbies trying to sway things because "he was a god" who deserves coverage. If I had waited a month, would that have even been enough time to start this discussion fresh?—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Internet celebrity with over 189,438 fans on facebook http://www.facebook.com/zyzzthetics and 380,447 views in 4 days on youtube which celebrates his birthday. Aziz Shavershian aka Zyzz has become a luminary, within the spectrum of worldwide fans he has attained, that avidly follow fitness models and bodybuilding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aenoxxx (talk • contribs) 21:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • —Ryulong (竜龙) 04:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• you can delete this down there is a whole generation of zyzz fans. He died show the man some respect, cant treat a god like this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.251.123 (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • —Ryulong (竜龙) 04:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, OSE - but the above claims about being sydney-centric are bogus. Even if it's just the same rationale behind a lot of internet famous people - Tay Zonday :| - 400,000 hits in under a week! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdBoybKnzZw&feature=g-logo&context=G2bd1e95FOAAAAAAACAA. Not to mention the spread of the Philosophy of Zyzz as an influential global socio-cultural phenomenon (i.e. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/zyzz). Please respond, watch out your comments, and stay safe.Twyn3161 (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  Do you have sources to back up your claims, particularly as to this "global socio-cultural phenomenon"? Also, KYM is not a reliable source unless they made an episode about an entry within, and particularly if the entry has not been accepted as an actual meme (I see it's still in "Submission" status).—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  Nope, Chuck Testa?Twyn3161 (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  I can see you're not going to take this seriously. If you're not going to contribute constructively, don't contribute at all.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong you fuking phaggot just leave the article alone. Wikipedia is a fuking encyclopedia. If I wanna learn about Zyzz, i'll go here. if i don't wanna learn about zyzz, i don't go to the article. fuking phaggot.