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 no consensus. There is no consensus to delete this article. The primary concern is not that there are no sources, but that the sources do not support notability due to various reasons including being primary (forumsprng), 1E (about his death), or trivial mentions. Reading this discussion, it appears to me that the keep argument is fairly stronger supported by numbers based on WP:GNG in saying that any substantial coverage by independent sources counts toward notability. To be frank, it's actually quite impossible to determine the real consensus of this discussion (which appears to lean keep) because of the badgering attitudes of two participants; one on either side. AFD is meant to be a discussion and badgering every opinion until you get your way is disruptive and unhelpful. It makes it impossible for a closing sysop to determine the general consensus rather than the insistent demand of one or two editors. No prejudice to an immediate renomination with less WP:BATTLEGROUND. v/r - T P 01:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Shavershian

[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to on BodyBuilding.com, 4chan, Facebook, or 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)

Shavershian is only known for the actions of his brother, his death, and an alleged Internet following. This definitely falls under the umbra of WP:1E. The level of coverage he received was transitory. —Ryulong (竜龙) 21:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~ Among the above, Shavershian has published a book; appeared in a series (National Road Trip) ~ and has Independent reliable sources/coverage to corroborate notability. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 22:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can publish a book. That show apparently has never made it to air, YouTube or otherwise, and nothing else indicates that Shavershian is in any way notable on his own. The only reason this article appears to have been created was because of the press surrounding his death. In fact, ~~more than half~~ all of the reliable sources in the article regard his death, or passing mentions of him having died. "Zyzz" is not worthy of an article on Wikipedia, particularly one that is just basically an obituary.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to many of the sources in the article ~ he's also an Internet personality. If we went by the twisted version of BLPE1 (one being used for this) half the notable BLPs here would be gone. Plus sources have been coming out since his the individual died in August. That says a lot. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 00:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So because he was on the Internet makes him special? He is only notable and ever mentioned in the press for having died suddenly. And the only "sources" that come since his death are random articles that you or someone else has found where they mention "This guy was a bodybuilder who suddenly died". He has had no lasting impact outside of BodyBuilding.com and the /fit/ board on 4chan.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe if you read the sources, you would know that many of his videos have gone viral. Also millions of people die all the time...where is their coverage? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 00:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The word "viral" appears nowhere in the article. "Internet" and "YouTube" only appear once, each, as well. The entire article pulls random facts from every mention of his death or questions posed to him on his formspring account. This does not convey notability at all. He is only notable for having died which is not enough for Wikipedia.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        A suggestion would be to take a good long read of the sources. That's all -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 00:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        There is nothing concerning him that proves he is notable. He has never entered any bodybuilding competitions as far as I can tell, and therefore has won no awards. His "cult following" is limited to a very small group of individuals. Every single news article that is being used as a source on the page says he died, and uses his death in relation to anabolic steroid abuse in Australia. He published one 66 page fitness book that has received no reviews. He allegedly appears in one web series that has not yet started its run anywhere. He put his name on some fitness supplement line, which I don't think really says much of anything. Everything out there about this man just says "he is dead" and Wikipedia does not need to report on the death of some guy who made a splash for a month and a half in the Australian press.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll correct you, a "splash" for a more than half a year ~ and if you were to recreate WP:BLP and WP:N ~ as I said before we would have half the articles that are on Wikipedia... gone. "His "cult following" is limited to a very small group of individuals." ~ you can't attest to that, you are not a reliable source however, the source that mentioned his following, is. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, it's mentioned in passing, just like he is except for every article about his death.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Keep telling yourself that. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources on this article aren't too good. I see Formspring posts by the subject of the page being used as sources for facts. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal)} 03:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - MelbourneStar, we get it. He's a hometown boy and you want the article retained.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Excuse me? Ah he's actually from Sydney. I'm from a totally different city, please get your facts right. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. I thought the Rescue Squadron was eliminated.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google News shows Blacktown Sun, two Daily Telegraph mentions, news.com.au... Haven't checked Newsbank yet, but if there is that on a Google News search, convinced there should be enough to pass WP:GNG when a more in depth search is done. --05:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Laura, I don't see anyting in that search. The issue shouldn't be whether or not he's ben mentioned in reliable sources, but whether or not he's received any coverage that shows he is notable.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see four results. They were from the sources referenced. Maybe try again or try searching on those publications? --LauraHale (talk) 07:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per WP:NOTNEWS: I'm not seeing any evidence that Mr Shavershian was notable, and the media coverage concerning him is gutter press type stuff of no lasting significance. The use of forum posts by the subject of the article to reference minor details about him (such as his UAI score) violates all sorts of policies, and borders on the creepy. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you suggest we re-write WP:ABOUTSELF? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- I don't understand how a slow week in the Australian press and repeated mentions to the fact he was a bodybuilder who died means we should retain an article on this man.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand, how you can't "get it" that it wasn a lot more than just a week, and they're not "mentions" rather articles on the subject. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 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. Jenks24 (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the references in the article are posthumous mentions. It seems that he is only notable for having died and this alleged cult following, or being a bodybuilder linked to anabolic steroid abuse who died.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just glancing at the refs, here's one from before his death (in the Sydney Morning Herald): [7]. Jenks24 (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe that is the only one that is before his death, and even then he is barely the focus of the article. It's about steroid abuse in the bodybuilding world.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right, and that's why the only two images in that news article are of Aziz Shavershian, rather than his brother? In fact, that was an issue to Shavershian, he went further in denying alligations made against him ~ which he wrote a letter to the editor denying alligations made against him. That article is just as much about Aziz as it is with his brother. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        So that means a quarter of it is dedicated to him, despite not being the central topic discussed at all.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That's for the reader to decide. You see it as a quarter, I see it as something else. Both of us are the readers. Mixed opinions. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much per NickD. While there is plenty of news coverage, little of it suggests that the subject is suitable for coverage in an encyclopedia. Per WP:NOTNEWS being "famous for being famous" doesn't cut it, sorry. You need to do more than appear in the social pages now and again. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTABILITY states A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. WP:ENTERTAINER criteria has been met. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. As I said, all the news sources say he had quite a cult following. If reliable sources say that requirement has been met, than it has. Dream Focus 11:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is he really an "entertainer"? And if so, is being on YouTube and being mentioned by the local newspaper all one needs to be worthy of a Wikipedia article now?—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:ENTERTAINER defines itself as relating to "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:" He was a model and a television personality(defined as a celebrity). So yes this counts. Dream Focus 20:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - He was never on TV as far as I can tell. And does his Facebook or YouTube page (I'm not sure what he has exactly) really make him a model?—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I updated the wording since television personality redirects to celebrity, which he was. And the news articles are reliable sources, so when they call him a model, then he is. Dream Focus 22:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        But he didn't do anything other than die and have a drug peddling brother. How does this convey notability?—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        He had a cult following. Doesn't matter what else the articles about him said, they mentioned he had a cult following, thus he passes that requirement. We have guidelines to prevent from having the exact same arguments in every AFD. Dream Focus 00:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ahh, #2 of WP:ENTERTAINER ? That is one of the more ill-defined and poorly-conceived lines of any of the sub-notability guides. I've rarely seen it invoked successfully, and if that is all this guy is falling back on then doubts about this article only increase. Tarc (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Sub? Its not a sub, as in under anything. It stands fine on its own in accordance to the rules. And consensus has long been established and sustained for that to be in that guideline. Insulting the rule doesn't make it any less valid here. Dream Focus 16:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, don't go getting your panties bunched up. Yes, "sub", as in a specialized/specific notability guideline for entertainers, apart from the general notability guidelines. As for "insulting", no; the proper terminology would be "dismissive of". These are guidelines after all, and just as the weak-assed "multiple nominations" line of WP:PORNBIO has been set aside numerous times, so can this. The fact that a lot of anonymous people on the internet like something or someone is not a compelling argument to support article retention. Tarc (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Iconic figure, importance in bodybuilding clearly evidenced by numerous reliable sources including this episode Australia's leading national radio current affairs show Background Briefing centring on Zyzz [8]. His RIP site on Facebook has 160,000 followers, hardly an "alleged cult following". 27.32.251.238 (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — 27.32.251.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - The usual WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E for puffed-up popinjays that get a little media chatter for trivial things. The article read like one long, fawning youtube comment. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quoting the GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." It does not matter what he is being covered for, but that he is being covered. See WP:1E- unless we are going to have an article titled "Death of Aziz Shavershian", the article about him should be created instead. As for the content concerns, remember that AFD is not cleanup. A412 (Talk • C) 03:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, quoting from WP:PSTS, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Thus, responses he provides on his Formspring can be used as a primary source about him. The article is simply repeating what his replies were. A412 (Talk • C) 03:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The main issue is, are the apparently numerous articles concerning his death significant coverage such that Shavershian deserves an encyclopedic article? It seems that this article is just one big obituary because Shavershian does not appear to have any impact. He is simply someone who existed and did things on the Internet. If I may make an analogy, the living Natalie Tran is another Sydney native who is also fairly popular on the Internet, but she has actually won awards for what she has done and has appeared on television, which Shavershian has not in either regard (he was an extra in one TV show and the web series he is apparently in has not seen release).—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your analogy with Natalie Tran would work - if she had similar circumstances - which she most definately does not. She is more than three years older than Shavershian. She has been in the spotlight for 3 years more than Shavershian. She makes vlogs ~ he did not. He was a bodybuilder ~ she is not. Only similarities I see, are the following: They lived in the same area. They are both internet personalities. They are both notable. ~ On a side note, the opening of this Ten News segment says it all. How many non-notable people (as you assert) have this done? not many at all. None. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I bring up the analogy because Tran has done things of note. Shavershian has done nothing but died. His death is all that has ever been reported about him, aside from the fact that his brother was arrested for possession of steroids shortly before he died and his existence used as an excuse by the Australian media to provide warnings for steroid abuse. There is a whole lot of nothing out there about him, and single lines in the Australian press (within the articles that describe the circumstances of his death) that say "he is famous on the Internet" are not enough to show that he is notable. I cannot tell why the Australian news picked up on his story at all, because there does not seem to be anything that says "Aziz Shavershian is a popular amateur bodybuilder with a following on Facebook (or whatever other sites there are)". Everything about him for some reason treats him in the past tense, and everything is just a repeat of other information, which shows there is nothing of note about him that shows he has had any sort of lasting impact except to serve as a segue to say that anabolic steroids are bad for five months in Sydney's news media.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem here, is, however, that he has been significantly covered by news media (not just routine news) over several months. Thus, he or his death in some way fulfill the WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because this coverage is significant, and covered by many sources over a period beyond the immediate time following his death. A412 (Talk • C) 06:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Is it really significant coverage if every news piece regurgitates the same information, and then mentions something about steroid abuse, with the only new information being autopsy results?—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Definately not the same information, if the article has more than 20 different reliable references, sourcing different content each time. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll go through the news articles in order. He died and someone made a comment on his Facebook. Opinion piece that says he died, vague mention of Internet following. He died, fans on social media. He exists, steroid abuse in Australia. He died, autopsy results. Passing mention in article about steroid abuse. Entry in a list of news events of 2011. Analogy in article on muscle dysmorphia. Arrest of Said Shavershian. Mention of his death alongside arrest of his brother. Autopsy results. ???? I don't think Now Public is even a reliable source. SimplyShredded is not a reliable source. ABC.net.au is a single paragraph. Passing mention. Passing mention. Passing mention. A link to a video.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, now we know that if anyone on Wikipedia needs someone to give a very-brief explanation of a notable article's reliable sources, you'll be first to know. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It is most definitely significant coverage, even if each piece regurgitates the same thing. A multitude of secondary sources have covered him. A412 (Talk • C) 15:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        But the fact the same stuff is mentioned each time by the same newspaper, does it really show he's notable? And half of the news articles come from the Sydney Morning Herald. Yes, it's the oldest newspaper in Australia, but it's just the local paper for his hometown. There is no reason to have an article on someone who only got mentioned because his brother was arrested and then the Sydney news media decided to unnecessarily keep his death in their pages.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The job of Wikipedia is not to critique the news. If he has been covered for that long, he is notable because of it. A412 (Talk • C) 06:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        But that's what WP:NOTNEWSPAPER was made to prevent. He's done nothing notable and the multitude of news articles don't prove anything about him. He is only the main topic of the reliable sources when they discuss the events of his death, and dying does not make one notable. The article is a glorified obituary because he has had no lasting impact.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - What did Jesus do in his lifetime? Had friends, not much else. Wikipedia does not choose its topics based on some criteria for personal merits, but on what reliable sources say on the topic. Thus this discussion on Shavershian's achievements is totally pointless. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wow. Did you really just make that comparison? I don't even think I can even begin to make any sense of it. You have just compared a religious figure with some nobody who has been deified by a small niche of the amateur internet bodybuilding community. But if it's necessary, Jesus was recorded as having done things before his death. All we have for Aziz Shavershian is that his brother got caught with steroids and he himself died, in 20 different news articles no less. What has happened with Shavershian is exactly what happened with Corey Delaney 4 years ago. He's someone who was not notable at all, but was unnecessarily focused on in the Aussie news media.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are articles for numerous other "internet personalities" that didn't have nearly the size of following or cultural impact. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magibon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.77.246 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC) — 70.62.77.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep - had a large fanbase (over 145,000) and inspired many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.105.45 (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC) — 203.97.105.45 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep - because he made a change. — 122.60.1.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep As many reliable sources state, he does have a large fanbase, and did inspire many people. 80.109.200.210 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC). — 80.109.200.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: Threads have been made on Bodybuilding.com (can't link to it because it's blocked by the spamlist apparently), 4chan (thread since deleted), and at least one Facebook memorial asking to derail this discussion, which is evident from the 4 IP !votes above.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mhmm I see. Well they are all SPAs ~ and I would not think much weight would be given to their !votes anyway. Requesting a semi-protection of the discussion seems appropriate at this stage, given that their is a good possibility of canvassing. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 14:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' One of the news sources linked to above indicates that the subject's death was comparable with that of Steve Jobs: "The death of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs was the fifth most searched for, the Australian body builder Aziz Shavershian, known as "Zyzz", the sixth". The nomination's reference to WP:1E is obviously illogical because there is no event here which is distinct from the subject. There's no cogent reason to delete here. Warden (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because everything about him is about the fact that he died. A single death due to a congenital heart defect should not make this man in any way notable, particularly when all coverage of him comes from his city's local paper, and some passing mentions in other Australian news media.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh so articles within the Daily Telegraph, The West Australian, Ninemsn - a broadcast on Network Ten news --is all just a bowel of goldfish, right? No, it's clearly notability outside of the country's largest city, and most prominent newspaper. IF there were few sources ~ a delete is appropriate IMO. That's far from the case. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So a lot of sources that say jack squat mean we have to have an article on this man? Wikipedia is not the place for obituaries of people who have had no impact on society other than creating a bunch of musclehead fanboys who "mire" him.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Frankly, I see your argument as completely flawed. We do not decide whether to create articles based on merit, but rather than notability. If he is famous for "creating a bunch of musclehead fanboys" and this is covered extensively, but is a completely unimportant person otherwise, he is notable. A412 (Talk • C) 05:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not important what the sources say or why they said it. It only matters that this person received significant coverage in many sources repeatedly over a long period of time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So anyone who appears in the news more than once is notable?—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ryulong, please read WP:NOTABILITY Dream Focus 08:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know the guideline. I just fail to see how the subject of this article (if it can even be called an article) even remotely meets those criteria.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat random question. Since a good chunk of those references are formspring, I have to ask... is formspring really a valid source for anything? From what I understand, folks just ask questions there, and the users answer however they want; there's even less cause to be serious on that than on the average blog. — Isarra (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, since most of the other sources appear to be posthumous, would that not mean that if anything the notable thing would be the guy's death, not the guy? Perhaps this article should be merged into a new article on that. — Isarra (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the note of Formspring, the article is not based on the Formspring posts, and there is no issues authenticity wise with the sources used ~ therefore abiding by WP:ABOUTSELF. With respects to a merge, there is still content of the subject, although "little", prior to his death - and as had been said, the subjects death appeared to be a "normal" death that occurs all the time ~ and his death wouldn't detail his bodybuilding; persona; internet personality status ~ etc. That's just my take on it. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 00:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So if his bodybuilding, persona, etc are important, why was there so little on them before he died? — Isarra (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why they published a lot of the content after death isn't the issue. Let's bar the fact for now that he has had a long period of coverage - there have been people in this world that have had their talents and their notability discovered after their death. I can tell you right now that some if not all of those people would have articles as well. But, that's not the case at all, since Shavershian was co-centre issue in an article published prior death. Something else to consider would be the status of an Internet Personality: how do they get discovered? People and press. That is what Shavershian has gotten, and what he still may get, considering the fact sources have come out post-death too. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Six months isn't "a long period of coverage". Being a "co-centre issue" does not beget notability on Wikipedia. His brother got arrested, and The Sydney Morning Herald decided to mention him too in something about steroid abuse. This does not beget notability, either. Shavershian was a flash in the pan, unless you go to BodyBuilding.com or 4chan. The page on Wikipedia about him is in no way any sort of article. It is just an obituary. And Wikipedia is not a place for memorials.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        An obituary? because the article mentions that the subject died - it's automatically an orbituary? No. Just because there is a death section in the article - it's an orbituary, right? No. I'd love to see what you think of this. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The article as it stands is not a biography. It's a vigorously sourced obituary. Michael Jackson, who actually did something other than die, is not a good analogy. "Zyzz" did nothing. He was a bodybuilder who did not win any contests. He was a model who did not represent any product, other than one that he started before he died. He was an extra on a TV show and allegedly appears in a web series that is in production hell. The fact that the Australian press decided to make a field day out of his untimely death for a month, brought it up again 2 months later, and then decided to show that for some reason he was googled a lot, should not be a reason why Wikipedia has an article on him.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If the subject had no notability or coverage, whatsover, you'd see me co-deleting. However, you don't see me suppoting a delete because the article has both. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't get why you think his coverage begets notablity.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe it's time the Wikipedia community re-writes the WP:NOTABILITY policy - that way we all know that coverage for a long period of time (among other things) = notability.-- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        So you acknowledge the fact that "Zyzz" does not currently meet our (current) guidelines for inclusion?—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I'm clearly implying that you are misubnderstanding notability ~ I'm suggesting it is re-written, so everyone understands it, not few. Oh and what you say, is a suggestion - not even close to the facts. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, I understand it quite well. I am just aware that this one dead guy does not meet the requirements, even if you believe otherwise.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Coverage and notability are inherently related. If he has coverage, it is obviously because he has notability. We do not define notability subjectively- we take coverage and interpret it as notability. Nowhere in a notability guideline is the opinion of an article's subjective notability according to an editor mentioned. You are using circular reasoning- because he is not notable, no amount of coverage will make him notable, and thus he is not notable. A412 (Talk • C) 06:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Coverage does not mean it is necessary to have the article. "Zyzz" is not notable because the coverage he received was transitory. The only time he was ever the central subject of an article is when the Sydney Morning Herald unnecessarily published content on the fact that he died. Anything else out there is a passing mention of him having died or being used as an illustration on steroid abuse. This does not make him notable for our guidelines on the matter.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        "The Sydney Morning Herald unnecessarily published content on the fact that he died."- This is a subjective opinion promoted by you. No editor is entitled to the ability to attribute a certain news story as unnecessary or necessary. Based on your logic, why do we have any Wikipedia articles? They all have coverage, however that does not been it is necessary to have an article on them. A412 (Talk • C) 06:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The subjects of other Wikipedia articles have had an impact. Adding "u jelly" and "u mirin" to the Internet lexicon is not an impact.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, subjective impact. Who are you to say that "adding "u jelly" and "u mirin" to the Internet lexicon" is not an impact? A412 (Talk • C) 06:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well what objective impact has he had? Being the sixth most googled term by the nation of Australia? Having a drug abusing brother? Being used as a warning to the Australian bodybuilding scene to not use steroids even though he died of a heart defect?—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Let's see, what has he done? He has been covered in independent sources over a period of multiple months, created an internet cult following, had videos go viral, et cetera. I'm starting to believe you really have no motive for deletion. "Because he is not strictly notable (in Ryulong's opinion), this article should be deleted." is approximately your stance. You have admitted that he fulfills notability (by admitting that he has had coverage), and quoting from the WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.", and thus fulfills the notability criterion for inclusion. Whether the article is written as an obituary or not, however, is a problem for cleanup. AFD is not cleanup. A412 (Talk • C) 15:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        He's had coverage but it is by no means "significant". The cult status on the Internet has already been pointed out as such a minimal, subjective, and useless sub-guideline of the WP:BIO criteria. If he had viral videos, why was nothing mentioned before his death? If he did things, why was that not brought up before his death? All the news media and Internet have been doing is deifying a nobody.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - My take on it is that Formspring is as reliable as any other primary source published by the subject. If he wants to publish falsehoods, he can do that in a blog or book too. They can be used per WP:PSTS. A412 (Talk • C) 00:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to that, primary sources should be avoided unless reliably published or treated as such. This seems to use it as generic source. — Isarra (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:PSTS or otherwise, per WP:ABOUTSELF those sources are reliable - Formspring only is an issue if it's used to corroborate controversial content; the authenticity of the post is clearly off, or if the article is based on those sources ~ and the article has none of the above Formspring issues. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most Inspirational member on the world's biggest bodybuilding and supplementation site, (www.bodybuilding.com); as well as over 150,000 fans on Facebook. Zyzz was a professional bodybuilder and had his own supplement company, and even had recognition of this from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Frank Zane.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.206.17 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)— 24.36.206.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. - Clearly meets wikipedia notiability. This is a clear case of people hating internet superstarts trying to push there own agenda like the Corey incident which made world news coverage but was removed by a admin. Clearly meets notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And the articles on that individual are all deleted and remain deleted per WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS. Shavershian is no different from him, except Shavershian is dead.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As AFD is not a vote, I would like to implore the closing administrator to take a look at the nature of the reliable sources being used to support notability. This article discusses an individual who has only been discussed in regards to his untimely death. The only news piece used in the article that discusses him prior to his death is only marginally about him. In fact, a bulk of the articles discuss him in some sort of entry on steroid abuse. This article, which I've recently removed from the page, was being used as a source to say that Shavershian is linked to skyrocketing steroid abuse in Australia, which the news article itself does not even claim.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Before deciding the result of this AFD, I suggest carefully reading the notability guideline, particularly the general notability guideline. While editors have tried to argue that having an internet following and "no objective impact" are criteria for deletion, this was not attributed to any policy or guideline. Note that many of the policies and guidelines cited by deletionists in this debate are not even completely relevant or correct to apply here, shown by MelbourneStar and myself.A412 (Talk • C) 05:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: administrators read over the arguments that are presented throughout the Afd, so it is not necessary to leave them a special note summarizing the discussion at the bottom of the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Particularly when one is made to mock another editor. This is still a discussion, and my note was another coment in that discussion that could not be prefixed by a "keep" or "delete" !vote indicator. I will refactor that in this edit.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, changing the formatting of my note as well. Note that I am not attempting to mock you, Ryulong, just attempting to show both sides of this discussion. A412 (Talk • C) 05:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright, I was afraid newcomers to the debate would think they're supposed to all add notes at the bottom too. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~ I'll remind Ryulong, yet again, that the use of Formspring and other questionable sources such as Facebook and Twitter (latter aren't included in article) is covered under WP:ABOUTSELF. Therefore I'll be reinstating relevant content with Formspring as a source. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I only removed it because it led to a vandal continuously adding in the subject's joking mention he was seeking illicit drugs. His move from Russia and his height may be relevant on Wikipedia, but we do not need to post his grades.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies about the grades ~ realised what was added in that case. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oh come on, I've seen a pilot episode of a TV show with him as a star. In fact, it's mentioned in the article. -iopq (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being in a pilot episode does not make him notable, particularly if the show has never made it to broadcast/release.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But those sources provided, most definately do make him notable. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 23:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zyzz is/was the inspiration for many people to start on the path to a healthier lifestyle. He may have used steroids to get there but considering his starting position as a 50 kilo world of warcraft addict his dedication to weightlifting is remarkable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.181.172.96 (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — 132.181.172.96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep -- well-sourced article. I find the blatant deletionism tiring. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not deletionism. This is a repeat of the Corey Delaney debacle from 2008. He was a nobody whose story got picked up by major news outlets, despite not being notable at all. He's not like Antoine Dodson whose made a career out of his 15 minutes of fame. Shavershian did nothing and only has a small legion of fanboys trying to keep his 1 month appearance in the news alive.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting: Where do you get "small legion of fanboys" from "cult following"? And, last time I checked, it's been more than half a year, not a single "month". Also, on fans, 170,000~ on Facebook + the title of "most inspirational" on the world's largest oline bodybuilding community, Bodybuilding.com, does not equal up to a "small following", sorry there. To save us all the time and energy, let me guess your concerns: is it something along the lines of Facebook and Bodybuilding.com are not-notable? 170,000 people isn't many? the source I provided is unreliable? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 23:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not every Internet personality is notable. This is particularly true for those who are only known to the general public for having a drug abusing brother and an untimely death. And the provided sources may be reliable, but they do not mean anything. There were just as many sources covering whatever the fuck Corey Delaney did in 2008, but we don't have an article on him for just the same reasons there should not be one on "Zyzz".—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Leave Corey analogy out of this... he belongs in 2008. It's 3 years from then, times have changed, and they have totally different circumstances. Upon what you have stated, Shavershian has a following; months of coverage; appeared in a series; published a book; has a protein line. Oh, and is notable. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 00:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I mean this in the best possible way, but will you two please knock it off and just let other people comment? Granted, I understand that this is supposed to be a discussion, but responding to everything you disagree with is getting a little ridiculous, especially when you've already made your points. — Isarra (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I know Isarra, but Melbournestar, anyone can publish a book or make their own protein line, and the "series" you keep referring to has never seen the light of day. If it's a reality show, not everyone who appears on one of those things gets a page on Wikipedia, either. There's nothing special about "Zyzz" other than the undue attention the Australian media gave him in August, and again in December.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand what you mean Isarra, however Ryulong opened this door, when nominating the article for deletion. Nominating via AfD requires there being a discussion, and I'm sure Ryulong understands that - and since there has been a nomination, he wants a discussion - he will get one. Ryulong you are highlighting the fact that he has got coverage - yet you are also contradicting your statements where you say it's a one month thing. The book; series; protein line - accompanied - with months of coverage and reliable sources and a "cult following" as noted by sources - make him notable. Ryulong, if you'd like to discuss further, my talk page is free. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The coverage he received does not make him notable. He's a nobody who got mentioned on a slow news day when his brother was arrested, and that turned into a media circus when he died a month later. Having however many facebook friends, writing a self-published book that's never been reviewed, being on a web series that has never been broadcast and is probably not notable itself, and a protein powder line doesn't confer notability.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        A slow news day? come on, let's not critique Australian news - if you are not familiar with it. I can tell you right now, everyday, isn't a slow day with news. It is News. And what you state above about Shavershian, does not confer to your opinion, of notability - that's all. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 03:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The only reason he was mentioned was because of the arrest of "Chestbrah". He made no impact in any global media before then. The fact that he then shows up over and over again in regards to his death and his corpse's return to Australia does not make him notable.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        "over and over again"' = coverage. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        And the same thing happened with Delaney in 2008. He's not notable.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, Delaney and Shavershian are two different people - two different situations - two different articles - two different, everything. Like comparing cats and dogs. Now, I'm not willing to discuss any further, as my comments are pretty clear, and don't contradict eachother all the time. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frustrated keep due to WP:BLUDGEON by nominator. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2012 (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.