Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:31, 24 March 2012

Aziz Shavershian

• 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. In fact, the first reason he was even mentioned by the Herald was because his brother was arrested for possession of anabolic steroids a month prior to his death, and whenever the Herald, or other Australian news media, want to discuss steroid abuse they reference Shavershian. Approximately 90% of the sources in the article 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
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 Misplaced Pages 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. Other things about him include "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. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates