Talk:David Zancai

message: There's been a bit of editing activity happening recently with respect to the Zanta documentary. The current edit stripped the article down to the barest of mentions, to say as little as "a Zanta documentary does exist". I propose one of two changes:
*This sentence should either be removed entirely, since the reader can already see that the documentary exists by following the references, or
* The article should be reverted to incorporate the information contained in this earlier edit, since a decision to include a mention of the documentary in the article body should be backed up by more details than merely that "one exists".
I prefer the second option, but I would not give the documentary its own section heading; I think it falls nicely under "Notoreity".
Consensus? BFD1 16:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and made the change, but obviously this is still open to discussion. BFD1 14:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zanta Documentary

message: I don't know for sure, and I can't find any sources on this point. I suspect he does not based on personal observation, but we can't insert that into the article without a source.
Also, assuming Zancai does not perform for money, I think he still qualifies as a Busker, since entertaining for money is not a necessary condition for buskering. People can busker for fun or attention, as would seem to be the case with Zancai. So I've reverted the last edit. BFD1 21:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't count him as a busker (though I've no other word to describe him) as he doesn't really perform does he? I've seen him around Toronto, and I've seen his "busking". As far as I can tell, he walks around, does pushups, flexes and hollers at people. He's a novelty to be sure, but is it performing or performance art? I'm not too sure. I don't really think it is, as the term busker implies some sort of intended entertainment. If he is just looking for attention, then I'm not sure it counts. Chewbacca1010 20:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Zanta perform for money? 

message: I have gone ahead and deleted it per debate on irc. If you have an objection with that, please feel free to take it to deletion review.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please provide a link to the "debate on irc" that you are referring to.-- Jreferee 13:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * IRC is a chat service many Wikipedians use. It is not archived, and thus can't be linked to.  --  Zanimum 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: * For the record, I do not use IRC. I don't know who User:Alkivar spoke to over IRC about this article before deleting it, but it wasn't me. BFD1 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Undelete, Per WP:BIO, people who satisfy at least one of the items in WP:BIO may merit their own Wikipedia articles.  Per WP:NOTABLE and WP:BIO, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself.  Zanta has been the subject of (1) McLaren, Leah.  (April 30, 2005).  Globe and Mail.  Who is that capped man? Meet Zanta Ho Ho.  Page M1 and (2) Gerson, Jen.  (September 12, 2006).  Toronto Star.  So close to the stars, yet so far away; Tiny Penelope transfixes crowd Going with the Flow nets no result.  Section: Entertainment, Page C3.  Since Zanta has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself, Zanta is notable per WP:NOTABLE.  In addition, per WP:NOTABLE, "Published works" is intentionally broad and includes published works in all forms.  Both Globe and Mail and Toronto Star are Published works per WP:NOTABLE.  Further, WP:NOTABLE does not require a minimum geographic region for the fame.  The opinion that "his "fame" is entirely local to Toronto" as posted by a Wikipedian is not relevant to whether Zanta is notable per WP:NOTABLE and WP:BIO.  Moreover, whether a Wikipedian personally thinks a subject is or is not notable is not relevant to whether Zanta is notable per WP:NOTABLE.  Failure to satisfy all of the items in WP:BIO is not a justification for speedy deletion and not a justification to conclude that Zanta is not WP:NOTABLE.  In particular to the speedy deletion, there is no identified WP:CSD#General_criteria for the speedy deletion as required by WP:CSD#Procedure_for_administrators.  Because the topic fails to meet the speedy deletion requirements and the speedy deletion procedures were not followed in deleting the Zanta article, it is improper to require the matter be sent to deletion review.  Your speedy deletion of an article under deletion review appears to have subverted the five day deletion review process and appears to be a shocking behavior for an administrator.  Your apparent manufacturing non Wikipedia criteria to justify your speedy deletion appears to be a shocking behavior for an administrator.  The speedy deletion needs to be undone.-- Jreferee 13:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy Deletion

message: I revised the article to be more consistent with other biographies.  If I deleted your contribution or switched it to your dislike it was done by accident as it took a considerable amount of time to revise the article.  Please continue modifying the article from its present state and feel free to add back in your contribution if I left it out. -- Jreferee 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job, thanks. BFD1 20:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But you've mistaken an important point. The character of Zanta arose from a court appearance Zancai made in a custody battle for his daughter. Your revision puts undue emphasis on his attention-seeking television appearances as the source of the character with phrases like "his first appearance as Zanta was on television". And furthermore, I think it's a matter of WP:POV to say without any qualification that Zancai is an actor.BFD1 20:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, it's ok... A work in progress, right? I think it needs to be tightened up with redundant mentions removed or merged. I also think there are too many sections and some of the info can be consolidated. I still think some good information might be missing from this revision but I'll look at it with fresh eyes tomorrow. BFD1 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *My first response is, don't confuse me with the facts! LOL! My main goal was to give some needed overall structure to the article.  I used Martin Short as a model.  I tried to work in the facts as best as I could and extrapolated when I thought it important to have some text rather than none at all as it is easier to modify and move text rather than to discover that it needs to be added in the first place.  That is why there was an "early life" section with one sentence.  It told other editors that the early life section needed to be expanded.  As the article now appears, it does not convey that an early life section is missing.  Anyway, have at it!  Modify and change to your hearts content. It's all a journey, isn't it?-- Jreferee 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right. The AfD must have been getting to me! You've done a pretty good job synthesizing the old structure with the new. I've tried to brush up details a little and restore anything that got missed. I think the new structure works fairly well and certainly conforms better to a generic biography format. If and when something reputable gets published about Zancai's early life we can fill that gap in, but since it's the Zanta bit that makes him notable, I don't think an early life section will be missed for some time... Until, perhaps, he develops a new persona... Now there's a provocative thought. ;) BFD1 15:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised article

message: Banned from TTC link (National Post) 74.98.220.153 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That one's gold! Thanks. BFD1 15:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional reference

message: Anyone care to upload this to Wikimedia Commons, as it is CC-BY-2.0?  --  Zanimum 21:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Done! Thylark 22:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: This may or may not qualify as a  item, but this subject was featured in the Toronto Globe and Mail yesterday, available here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061223.ZANTA23/TPStory/TPEntertainment/Ontario/ Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tip. It's been a while since I read up on the policy of self-referential wikipedia articles, but that may now become a concern for this article. It's my feeling that the above Globe and Mail article doesn't offer much in the way of new and relevant information worth including in Zancai's entry on wikipedia. Ironically, most of the information in the G&M article is taken from the wikipedia article itself. BFD1 17:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see it included, as it is from a verifiable source and now part of his story. Tyrenius 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair point. I can see adding it as an external link. Not too sure how or if it could be incorporated into the article body, however. If you have any ideas, go for it! BFD1 00:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In the news

message: Might it be wise to include mention of his famed "YESYESYES" way of speaking? A lot of people know him as the "guy in a santa hat who yells YES YES YES". Anyone who has met him knows what I am talking about. --Goyston 00:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. 72.137.4.154 17:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: YES YES YES quote

message: The article was given a start class rating because there is not much information about Zancai's life away from being Zanta.  If someone has sourced information about Zancai's life away from the field, please add it. -- Jreferee 15:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography "Start" Class rating

message: Can we really consider Zanta to be an actor.  He does have a few television appearances, but I would not consider him to be an actor of any kind.  I just noticed that he's categorized under Canadian Actors and I thought this might be pushing it a bit much.  I'd have a tendency to remove that Category.  --Renrenren 15:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, it's a bit of a stretch. Busker, yes; actor, not so much... It's a value judgement, though. To me, 'actor' entails much more than merely being in character. Feel free to make the changes and remove the category. BFD1 15:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I also feel that actor doesn't reflect what Zancai is doing, but neither does the current intro, which refers to him as a street entertainer, since it's unclear whether he performs for money or not.  The closest definition I can find is performance artist. Not having seen his "act" personally, I would feel more comfortable if someone more knowledgeable could weigh in.  Joe JJC 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Performance artist is fine as well, and probably more intuitive than 'street entertainer', though I think both terms could be correctly applied to Zanta. I endorse using either, or both. BFD1 20:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actor? 

message: Apparently he had an unpleasant interaction with someone on transit last night, judging from what people are posting on social media. People keep adding this to the article. However, this can not be added without a reliable source. The incident as described may very well be true - I can't see why someone would make it up - but unless it gets news coverage, it can't be added. In other words, a social media post, something on reddit, etc, is not sufficient. (I imagine that people are adding this in good faith as a public safety warning, but really the posts on social media will do more on that front than an entry on wikipedia anyway.) Echoedmyron (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harassment allegations 

message: Substituted at 13:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on David Zancai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929121534/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/artslife/torontomag/story.html?id=37d4c929-11f0-4ca0-bb0f-56747144134a&p=1 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/artslife/torontomag/story.html?id=37d4c929-11f0-4ca0-bb0f-56747144134a&p=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070430234429/http://www.canada.com:80/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=dafcedaf-db11-474a-858f-6d408f931ac8 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=dafcedaf-db11-474a-858f-6d408f931ac8
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The "circa 2008" in the Years Active section is off by at least 7 years and effectively unsourced, given that a 12-year-old article noting that he's no longer active is not dispositive as far as whether he might have resumed performing in the decade-plus since the article was written.
As a resident of Toronto, I personally saw him performing at Yonge-Dundas Square in 2014, though of course that's not a basis for an edit on its own.
Would love to clean this up with more accurate information, if anybody's able to find even an indirect reference  to him being seen performing after 2008.
Edit: The latest reliable news article I was able to find was from the Toronto Sun in 2016, so I've added a reference to that and updated the years, as well as adding the phrase "at least" since there's no cited information indicating he's stopped performing, and assuming somebody became inactive following their last media appearance seems unwarranted. 
(The Sun has a poor reputation in general, but the consensus seems to be that it's acceptable for news items, especially something local and non-controversial like this.)
Jjpaq (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate "Years Active", Any Sources Available?