Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Shavershian (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Bluerasberry, 14:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:V||WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)