|
|
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
<noinclude>{{pp-semi|small=yes}}</noinclude> |
|
<noinclude>{{pp-semi|small=yes}}</noinclude> |
|
|
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|
{{not a ballot}} |
|
|
|
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' |
|
|
<!--Template:Afd top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> |
|
|
|
|
|
The result was I am withdrawing the deletion request at this time. It is clear to me that the current atmosphere is that either I did not wait long enough to seek a new consensus, and most people do not agree with me. I may in the future decide to revisit this, but I am achieving nothing but making my case worse by letting this go on, and with my urge to respond to comments on here.—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryulong</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="Gold">竜龙</font>]]) 01:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
===[[Aziz Shavershian]]=== |
|
===[[Aziz Shavershian]]=== |
|
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}} |
|
|
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Shavershian}}</ul></div> |
|
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Shavershian}}</ul></div> |
|
:{{la|Aziz Shavershian}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Shavershian (2nd nomination)|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 24#{{anchorencode:Aziz Shavershian}}|View log]]</noinclude>) |
|
:{{la|Aziz Shavershian}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Shavershian (2nd nomination)|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 24#{{anchorencode:Aziz Shavershian}}|View log]]</noinclude>) |
Line 77: |
Line 81: |
|
*:That's because the "Article Rescue Squadron" was in the past used as some sort of vote garnering farm full of people ready to keep anything on the project. Particularly when the "rescue" template was thrown onto an article.—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryulong</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="Gold">竜龙</font>]]) 01:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
*:That's because the "Article Rescue Squadron" was in the past used as some sort of vote garnering farm full of people ready to keep anything on the project. Particularly when the "rescue" template was thrown onto an article.—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryulong</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="Gold">竜龙</font>]]) 01:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
*'''Keep''' - Plenty of coverage from [[WP:RS|reliable, third party sources]]. It passes the [[WP:GNG]]. [[User:Sergecross73|<font color="green">Sergecross73</font>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<font color="teal">msg me</font>]] 00:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
*'''Keep''' - Plenty of coverage from [[WP:RS|reliable, third party sources]]. It passes the [[WP:GNG]]. [[User:Sergecross73|<font color="green">Sergecross73</font>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<font color="teal">msg me</font>]] 00:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was I am withdrawing the deletion request at this time. It is clear to me that the current atmosphere is that either I did not wait long enough to seek a new consensus, and most people do not agree with me. I may in the future decide to revisit this, but I am achieving nothing but making my case worse by letting this go on, and with my urge to respond to comments on here.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Wikipedia. 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. The first reason he was mentioned by the Herald was because his brother was arrested for possession of anabolic steroids a month prior to his death. It seems that from that point on, whenever the Herald, or other Australian news media, want to discuss steroid abuse they reference Shavershian. While I am aware that there are a large number of references on the article, most of the sources 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia because:
- 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.
- 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. Yes, he received a lot of news coverage. But coverage does not beget notability; i.e. Corey Delaney.
- 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.
- 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia based on merit of the comments and not a majority vote.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
- Keep Notable enough for major news sources to cover his death. [1] [2] [3] [4] Other things about him include [5] "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. [6] 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Keep: He appears to pass WP:GNG based on sources cited in the original AfD. Several newspaper references. --LauraHale (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Article nominator contacted me on IRC to discuss merits of WP:GNG 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 WP:GNG the first time and I see no reason to do much more research beyond that. --LauraHale (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I admit I had this discussion, I do not know what you mean by my "[having] a connection to the person involved". I certainly did not state that in the messages I sent you, nor did I even imply that.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I voted delete last time, and stand by that: this guy doesn't meet the notability criteria. However, re-listing this article for deletion within days of the last discussion being closed as 'keep' is pretty pointless, especially as any off-Wiki canvassing will still be active. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I won't write an essay as to why this article should obviously be kept, however that said, this article satisfies WP:GNG; according to sources has merits to pass WP:NMODEL (#2) - and those news sources have given him overwhelming coverage, and ultimately notability. It's one event - minus the videos; the drug story prior death; bodybuilding; cult following; book; protein line; webseries, and so on. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 22:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Using WP:ATD, an argument for deletion must explain either (1) that the topic would not be kept as a redirect at RfD, or (2) that there is objectionable material in the edit history, including the current version, that should be removed from public view. I have examined the nomination statement and see none, so we start without an argument for deletion. It is pretty well conceded that there are sufficient reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. WP:GNG itself explains that a multiplicity of sources does not make a topic "worthy of notice". But having conceded that the topic satisfies WP:GNG, the many arguments about ways in which the topic is not "notable", fail to address the key remaining point which is, is the topic "worthy of notice". This is the point at which the nomination argument must be read in the spirit in which it was intended. But I'm not buying it, this is one of the reasons that we use WP:GNG, to avoid second-guessing people who get paid for having opinions, as to whether the topic was really "worthy of notice". Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, again. This is what I wrote last time, "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." My opinion has not changed in the two weeks since the last discussion ended. Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Dream Focus and others. If someone was notable for even just one day, he's notable forever. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep When I see an article nominated for AfD a second time, especially within two weeks, I expect to see a detailed explanation of what has changed since the last time to justify the second nomination. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous nomination was closed as no consensus, so that shouldn't be an issue so long as this one can come to a consensus one way or another. Indeed, the closing admin specifically said 'No prejudice to an immediate renomination with less WP:BATTLEGROUND', so... well, you know. Only thing that really needs to have changed is what's happening on the nomination page itself, and with any luck the battegroundness should be over now. — Isarra (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per WP:DEL, " It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". Warden (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Colonel Warden, if you read Isarra's comment directly above yours, a comment I made earlier on in the discussion, and the close on the previous discussion, TParis stated that there was "No prejudice to an immediate renomination with less WP:BATTLEGROUND" because he closed it as "no consensus", not as "keep".—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This again? Subject clearly passes GNG. A412 (Talk • C) 22:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've had more than a little interest in this article for quite a while since MelbourneStar, an editor from my adoption programme, worked so hard to get it into a decent state. At the start I thought he was wasting his time, because I too thought the subject non-notable. However, having reviewed the sources provided, I do think that he meets the GNG and is deserving of an article.
Interestingly, the area that he has found fame - "internet personality" - is something I think we handle badly on wikipedia, because the concept is so new. With actors and musicians, we've seen so many rise and fall over the years that we can clearly see what it means to be notable, but with new internet celebrities we have a much more difficult job. If we did have an "internet celebrity" criteria, Zyzz would fit very well into it. He did have a cult following - especially in Australia (remember we're a worldwide encyclopedia). All in all, I'm persuaded by the merits of the article that it should be kept. WormTT · (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - 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 WP:ENT)) is icing on the cake.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per massive public interest in this person, and per extensive coverage, passing GNG several times over. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: On grounds that wikipedia is here forever, 2 weeks is not enough time for "no consensus" to change. Write 100 articles, come back and test this one then after a year or two.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Snow Keep -- for a whole whack of reasons:
- Nominator asserted in the very long nomination: "...It seems that from that point on, whenever the Herald, or other Australian news media, want to discuss steroid abuse they reference Shavershian." Well heck, that sounds like a good reason for the wikipedia to cover him. Wikipedia readers, who read a Sydney Morning Herald article about steroids, and wonder who this Shavershian guy is may look him up, and see if our article can explain why Australian newspapers keep mentioning him.
- With regard to WP:1E, I'll see your Corey Delaney and raise you a Chesley Sullenberger. Nominator argues that it Aziz had been notable, prior to his death, he would already have had an article. If you look at the first 50 edit to that article you will see deletionists arrived early and were determined to get that article deleted, as merely a "one event". I spent about an hour and a half looking for references to Sullenberger that predated his heroic landing on the Hudson River. I found references to four elements that supported Sullenberger being considered notable, prior to the landing. So, were they sufficient? Maybe. But if they merely brought him to the borderline of notability, the massive coverage of him, following the landing, clearly pushed him over. Not ever person who would pass our notability criteria already has an article and I am surprised that our nominator would suggest differently. Furthermore, there are lots of individual who are of borderline notability, or slightly below borderline notability, who will be boosted well over that borderline, by a sufficiently well covered event. Sullenberger may have been one of them, and so was Aziz.
- No offense to our nominator, but I think I have seen similar arguments before. It seems our nominator is arguing not so much that Aziz is notable -- rather that he shouldn't be notable -- without regard to the significant number of WP:RS that have covered him. No offense, but it seems like one big example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 16 comments to keep. Maybe 2 to delete (including nom). Can we SNOW keep yet? A412 (Talk • C) 02:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only been 72 hours. If that happens I will go to DRV so fast heads will spin.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The previous AfD was closed by the administrator with the hopes that any future ones would be less of a battleground. However, given that all of the previous participants (even the sock IPs) have been notified of this discussion, and multiple participants have chosen to ignore the admin's comments about NPASR and incorrectly call for a speedy keep, I don't think this one stands much of a chance of going anywhere either.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do find it disconcerting that Dream Focus decided to notify everyone that the AFD was restarted (including all of the one-shot IP addresses who came by because of the other websites; why the hell did he do that). And even moreso that we're getting the anons and newbies trying to sway things because "he was a god" who deserves coverage. If I had waited a month, would that have even been enough time to start this discussion fresh?—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Internet celebrity with over 189,438 fans on facebook http://www.facebook.com/zyzzthetics and 380,447 views in 4 days on youtube which celebrates his birthday. Aziz Shavershian aka Zyzz has become a luminary, within the spectrum of worldwide fans he has attained, that avidly follow fitness models and bodybuilding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aenoxxx (talk • contribs) 21:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- you can delete this down there is a whole generation of zyzz fans. He died show the man some respect, cant treat a god like this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.251.123 (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yes, OSE - but the above claims about being sydney-centric are bogus. Even if it's just the same rationale behind a lot of internet famous people - Tay Zonday :| - 400,000 hits in under a week! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdBoybKnzZw&feature=g-logo&context=G2bd1e95FOAAAAAAACAA. Not to mention the spread of the Philosophy of Zyzz as an influential global socio-cultural phenomenon (i.e. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/zyzz). Please respond, watch out your comments, and stay safe.Twyn3161 (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have sources to back up your claims, particularly as to this "global socio-cultural phenomenon"? Also, KYM is not a reliable source unless they made an episode about an entry within, and particularly if the entry has not been accepted as an actual meme (I see it's still in "Submission" status).—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, Chuck Testa?Twyn3161 (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see you're not going to take this seriously. If you're not going to contribute constructively, don't contribute at all.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 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 WP:IDONTLIKEIT crusade. Get over it and try again in a year. You are thoroughly out-voted. Milhisfan (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unmemorable, not a celebrity, this page is written for and by internet [redacted] Please end this debate and just delete this page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.128.161 (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- '"Keep"' he was an internet celebrity and had a very large following across the globe. Is a fairly well known person among many communities, both online and offline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.81.243 (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
- keep- he is still an inspiration to many worldwide, page is not hurting anybody or offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.3.162 (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
- Comment Ryulong- please read the previous close. As TParis stated, he closed as NC because of your battleground mentality.
To be frank, it's actually quite impossible to determine the real consensus of this discussion (which appears to lean keep) because of the badgering attitudes of two participants; one on either side. AFD is meant to be a discussion and badgering every opinion until you get your way is disruptive and unhelpful.
Please stop commenting on every single vote with essentially the same argument. A412 (Talk • C) 14:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm keeping my comments to a minimum rather than arguing with everyone.—Ryulong (竜龙) 18:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep- The general consensus seems to be obvious, alas Ryulong will disregard this post with the renowned bold statement ' lack of wiki posts is synonymous of irrelevant and dubious input on topic-Aenoxxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aenoxxx (talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aenoxxx has already commented on this debate as his first and only edit prior to this one.—Ryulong (竜龙) 18:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and that is never a good thing to have! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also... The comment of "Oh come on. I thought the Rescue Squadron was eliminated" was totally uncalled for and IMHO shows a very strong deletionist mentality. What is your problem with the ARS anyway? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because the "Article Rescue Squadron" was in the past used as some sort of vote garnering farm full of people ready to keep anything on the project. Particularly when the "rescue" template was thrown onto an article.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Plenty of coverage from reliable, third party sources. It passes the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.