Deletion of Aziz Shavershian (2nd nomination)

Comment: and let's bury this issue already. I don't particularly admire Zyzz, but like him or not people just won't stop talking about him. For better or worse, he has become a legendary bodybuilder on the internet, and the article doesn't lack for sources both attesting and adding to his renown. '''He is notable.''' Whether his notability will persevere remains to be seen, but he's been a big deal for years now, before and after his death. And frankly, Ryulong, you need to let it go for now. This seems to be personal to you, as is evidenced by your re-dredging this issue two weeks after the last unsuccessful attempt to get rid of it and your constant posting. It's a blatant  crusade. Get over it and try again in a year. You are thoroughly out-voted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The article's subject meets . 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  and therefore could not be tested for , but once he passed V then he passed N for reasons unrelated to the death event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: He appears to pass  based on sources cited in the original AfD. Several newspaper references
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Ryulong- please '''read''' the previous close. As TParis stated, he closed as NC because of your |battleground mentality
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BATTLEGROUND)

Comment: Notable enough for major news sources to cover his death.  http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/bodybuilder-aziz-zyzz-shavershian-killed-by-heart-defect/story-e6freuzi-1226112713390 http://phuketwan.com/tourism/brits-big-bovver-court-frees-jet-phukets-boom-yingluck-chooses-phuket-events-14537/ http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/metro/national/general/shattered-body-of-bodybuilder-zyzz-heading-home/2255452.aspx http://www.colliemail.com.au/news/national/national/general/thief-struck-after-bodybuilder-zyzzs-death-in-sauna/2257664.aspx Other things about him include http://www.cobarage.com.au/news/national/national/general/searches-show-our-true-cares/2384420.aspx "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. http://www.businessday.com.au/executive-style/fitness/all-pumped-up-but-tell-us-how-20110730-1i5cd.html  All the news sources say he had quite a cult following which means he meets the second item of  "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NMODEL)

Comment: 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 )) is icing on the cake
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT)

Comment: Article nominator contacted me on IRC to discuss merits of  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  the first time and I see no reason to do much more research beyond that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 16 comments to keep. Maybe 2 to delete (including nom). Can we |SNOW keep yet
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: A quick read of the last close shows this little gem... "AFD is meant to be a discussion and badgering every opinion until you get your way is disruptive and unhelpful". The editor this statement is targeted at is not important, what is important is the meaning behind that statement; If you harass the votes against your viewpoint then you can easily be seen as having a  mentality and that is never a good thing to have
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BATTLEGROUND)

Comment: Plenty of coverage from |reliable, third party sources. It passes the 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)