Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Critzos II (2nd nomination)

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 insufficient consensus to delete. This AfD has been somewhat disrupted by the behaviour of some of the participants, and I would just like to gently remind all concerned that our WP:BLP rules do apply to comments in the Wikipedia space. There are those who have been desysopped for using even quite mild deprecating language in AfDs about living people. Enough said.

Because this AfD has been disrupted, it will be in order for good faith editors to renominate this material to AfD in early course. NAC—S Marshall T/C 19:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

John Critzos II

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/John Critzos II
• Articles for deletion/John Critzos II (2nd nomination)

John Critzos II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable subject. No indication of importance. Vanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mephisto Panic (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — Mephisto Panic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Sources seem to demonstrate notability Cerebellum (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• You have yet to provide links and explanations of how the sources demonstrate notability. All of the references constitute passing mentions. Goodvac (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Sources are independent, credible, refer to other sources of notoriety, and seem to demonstrate notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.246.136 (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

---

— 96.244.246.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep This article was just up for AfD a few months ago (I believe no consensus was reached), although that discussion seems to have been overwritten by this one. There seem to be enough independent sources to support notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The nominator originally overwrote the first AFD with this one. I have split the histories and created a second nomination. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak keep. A lot of the sources are not really helpful, lacking significant coverage and credibility as reliable sources. The usna.edu and dcmilitary.com cites seem to scrape by the GNG between them, though. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• usna.edu is merely a passing mention, with no indication of notability. dcmilitary.com only talks of his "unique style of martial arts training" and follows with some quotes. A "unique style" does not confer notability. Goodvac (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G11. Blatant advertising. Sentences such as "Few, if any, are able to boost the record Critzos accumulated as well as the time span during which he dominated." and "His technical ability was matched by few, if any" serve as a concrete foundation of my belief that this article is fundamentally unrescuable in its current state, plagued as it is by IP editors with obvious conflicts of interest. Does no-one else see a problem with this obvious, blatant advertising and the myriad of single purpose accounts - notably 96.244.246.136 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) - that seem to proliferate around the article and associated AfDs? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  Sure, it's a problem, but it's a content problem, not an article-existence problem. Deletion isn't a way to address content issues. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion is the correct way to address content issues like this one - when it's quite obviously a G11 candidate. If I thought it was rescuable, believe me I'd rescue it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd done a halfway creditable job at that, really. Check the recent page history, see what you think. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright - the tone needs a bit of work there, but well done on cleaning it; you've swayed me! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a copyvio of http://www.lacancha.com/johncritzos.html. Goodvac (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Last sentence source wikipedia. We didn't copy them they copied us. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I usually check for those things. Goodvac (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete WP:GNG is not met. While I applaud Chaos5023 (talk · contribs)'s effort to rescue this article, all the sources are composed of superficial references to John Critzos II. None are in depth enough to confer notability. Goodvac (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• SPEEDY DELETE - hostname, ip sign in, user overlap. In non technical terms, as other users state, there are single purpose account and sock puppetry issues. Notice reformatting. Will report users. Absolutely nothing notable here. Pure narcissism. G11. Formidable.heart (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Call it bad faith, but you seem to be an SPA. Goodvac (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Formidable.heart removed other editors' strikeouts of their speedy delete !votes in making his !vote: . This is spectacularly unacceptable. Bad faith indeed. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Formidable.heart: attempted consensus manipulation by altering other editors' entries at AfD. Thank you. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Although the style needed help, the sources indicate notariety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.149.208.8 (talk • contribs) — 216.149.208.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - Notable subject and independent sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.240.241 (talk • contribs) — 98.190.240.241 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.