Deletion of Aziz Shavershian

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:GNG||WP:PAG)

Comment: per nomination and per : 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The usual  and  for puffed-up popinjays that get a little media chatter for trivial things.  The article read like one long, fawning youtube comment
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: 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  is obviously illogical because there is no event here which is distinct from the subject.  There's no cogent reason to delete here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

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: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Aziz+Shavershian%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1 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  when a more in depth search is done
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

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 . Therefore I'll be reinstating ''relevant'' content with Formspring as a source
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:ABOUTSELF)

Comment: 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  being "famous for being famous" doesn't cut it, sorry. You need to do more than appear in the social pages now and again
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)