Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zanta

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 keep; although this was closed a couple of hours before it should have been, there is no way any other result will occur. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zanta

Possible vote soliciting was posted @ http://blogto.com/city/2006/12/zanta_deleted_from_wikipedia/ -- Tawker 05:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This entry was posted before the AfD happened. It alerted me to the improper deletion, and thus I restored the article for its due process. Note that I discouraged voting by outsiders. -- Zanimum 14:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per the motion by BFD1 on Deletion review, I have restored this article for a (first, second?) AfD process. -- Zanimum 14:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zanimum. This is the first AFD to my knowledge. BFD1 14:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Featured in the two largest newspapers in Canada (Star, Globe); banned from the downtown of the largest city in Canada (Toronto), by request of a media organization (CHUM) recently bought out by the largest broadcaster in Canada (Bell Globemedia); banned from the largest municipal transportation system in Canada. -- Zanimum 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. article asserts notability, is carefully referenced and supported by reliable sources, and possesses a neutral point of view. The central argument in favour of deletion is that Zanta fails notability. Due to the nature of Zanta, he does not neatly fall into any of the categories in WP:BIO. However WP:BIO is not an exclusionary list, and Zanta should be considered an actor who has had numerous media appearances. The spirit of governance surrounding WP:LOCAL should be extended to this man of predominantly local interest, although there is sufficient reason to suggest that interest in Zanta is more global than that with his appearance on a Showcase television series aired in the US and Canada, with his appearance in articles of newspapers with international distribution (The Toronto Star). Since wiki is not paper, there's no reason to delete this article even if it were only of interest to residents and visitors to Toronto, which by the way is the largest city in Canada. BFD1 14:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete ~~pending addition of more sources. News coverage so far indicates possible minor notability, but so few articles doesn't really make it clear.~~ As WP:BIO states, "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles." I don't believe that the sources establish enough notability to merit an entire article. --Strothra 14:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NOTABLE and WP:BIO do not parse notability into minor notability and major notability. There are a number of notability criteria, any one of which is sufficient to call a topic notabile if met. 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.-- Jreferee 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough to me, and it also seems that there are enough verifiable sources. Bizarre, but good enough. JDoorj a m Talk 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 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 an annomous 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.-- Jreferee 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:N clearly states that notability is not subjective. It is not an editors job to remove articles because it has no relevance to them. The subject has been discussed multiple times in major reliable sources as per the criteria of WP:N and therefore this aritcle should not be deleted on the basis of lack of notability. Thylark 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I found another article on the subject and updated the Zanta article accordingly - Israel, Samantha. "Zanta, the 'living legend,' banned from TTC for 2 years: Won't put up with push-ups;" [Toronto / Late Edition]. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Nov 17, 2006. pg. A.14 Thylark 15:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep for now, and it can be happily merged to TTC a years hence when this kerfuffle is forgotten and the unnotable Zanta will live on as a mere asterisk reflecting the greatness of his oblivion. Eusebeus 16:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge into "TTC"? He's banned from the whole of Downtown Toronto, and from the city-owned fairgrounds where dozens, if not hundreds of conferences and events take place every year. And even if he were to be merged into TTC, where? The TTC is parent to dozens of related articles itself. -- Zanimum 17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - some of the sources are blogs and MySpace (and the YouTube link should be removed, as it's definitely not considered a reliable source), but the media coverage seems to be close to the bar. I know we kept a California busker recently that was of this similar stature, but I don't remember the name of the article... Tony Fox (arf!) 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, generally I'd agree YouTube isn't a source. But we're citing a student film that exists offline, that interviewed the subject of the article himself. Are documentary shorts not citable? -- Zanimum 17:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple cups of tea in me now, so I'm awake. It's probably okay as an external link, but it's definitely not a reliable source - I can't find the discussion, but I know that there's a lot of work being done stripping out YouTube links from articles right now. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if someone were to cite A Note of Triumph: The Golden Age of Norman Corwin in the Norman Corwin article, would that be allowed? I mean, are any docs citable, or is it just student films that can't be cited? Isn't any citation better than no citation? -- Zanimum 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue with these would be whether they're secondary sources or not. I'm honestly not sure how video/television/etc. reporting is classified for our sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. notability is not subjective. Because we non-Canadians didn't hear about Zanta before doesn't make him less notable, it just means we didn't know about him. There is a cultural issue here as well, as odd as Zanta may be, since deleting Zanta would appear to be the removal of a Toronto Pop Icon from the Wikipedia, which means all other pop icons are suspect (such as Naked Cowboy, who was only elevated in status to support publicity). Not everyone lives in the United States, and not everyone has the same influences. That said, having read the article I find it appears to be factual, and establishes notoriety to a fair degree. In this regard, he passes the grandchildren test: If you see him, you would probably tell your grandchildren (and they would probably look it up). While not something I see as a valuable resource, I see no harm in keeping it as a part of a large and rich world culture. However, if it is selected for deletion I do expect to see Naked Cowboy in queue for deletion with this entry's result as a precedent. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the Naked Gander. --TaranRampersad 16:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of notability and notoriety here. Compare many other articles, such as Diceman (Dublin entertainer). Snalwibma 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced article about someone who is a local identity in Canada's largest city. Capitalistroadster 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a better referenced article than a lot of cruft articles I've seen. I think he qualifies under WP:LOCAL and meets WP:NPOV and WP:V. ~ BigrTex 19:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:BIO with verifiable reliable sources. -- Whpq 20:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.' He has numerous media appearances in print, television and the internet. I believe in a city like Toronto, a character like Zanta is very notable to the local citizens. If he was in Venice Beach, California, perhaps nobody would care. Given that he is one of a kind for Toronto, he remains in the spotlight and often talked about. There's even a Livejournal community about Zanta sightings. Sarnya 20:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a pretty cool/weird/etc guy here in Toronto and for the purposes of this discussion notable for the reasons listed above. Lsjzl 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well source and interesting. We could do with more articles like this, not less. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please should not have been erased ever it is notable and verifiable too with many sources Yuckfoo 00:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has references from national newspapers, and thus meets notability criteria. -- 80.168.226.41 01:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 26 edits. -- Zanimum 14:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cribcage 04:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mind you, I've actually seen this raving lunatic with my own eyes. The article is factually correct. The fact it was deleted earlier is a disgrace to those of us with deletionist tendencies. Properly sourced, referenced and formatted articles should not be deleted, and the fact that this had to go to deletion review to save it is ... distressing.--Elar a girl^Talk|Count 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I second the sentiments of Elaragirl. This article, much like the deletion review of Arch Coal that Jimbo Wales challenged with futility in October, is a testimony to how the Wikipedia community has lost its collective mind with deletionism. --JossBuckle Swami 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close debate and keep. No new arguments have been presented in favour of deletion. It seems some approximation of consensus has been reached. BFD1 14:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An odd bird, to be sure, but the article is well-referenced and asserts notability. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:54, 9 December 2006 (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.