Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moni Aizik (3rd nomination)

:{{la|Moni Aizik}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moni_Aizik_(3rd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Moni Aizik}})

Controversial biography of living person with an on-going edit war. I would like to establish community consensus about whether we should have this article when supported by the Black Belt Magazine references and the Advertising Standards Authority references. jmcw (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I find these references reliable and sufficient to establish notability. The controversy concerning this living person has reliable references. jmcw (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Guy appears to be notable. Even if everything he's said is a lie, the fact that his lies have garnered coverage would make him notable. I think the key is to try to create a NPOV article, rather than deleting it.JoelWhy (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The Black belt coverage is a good standard in this area; his books, his competition record, and the ASA issue all contribute to his notability. An article on this individual is appropriate and there are adequate sources for such an article. Continue improving it but do retain it. JJL (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::I'm still mulling over my !vote, but I'm having a tough time considering the ASA opinions that his claims are pretty suspect as "coverage" that supports notability. That would be akin to using a police report to establish the notability of a burglar. Someone complained and they did their job, which is to investigate and report their findings. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

:::I agree that on their own even many news articles of that sort would not generally add up to notability. But I do find it helpful in light of the fact that he has received much coverage in martial arts sources to note that his name has come up in more general sources. The Black Belt etc. magazine coverage is what really makes the case for me. JJL (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Keep There are no sources for any of his championship claims, but there seems to have been enough coverage of him to pass WP:GNG. I'm not sure he's notable in the non-WP sense of the word. Mdtemp (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:The referenced material has been returned: could you take a look again? jmcw (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Notable but more sources needed. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 16:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep There is sufficient coverage to establish notabilty.--Charles (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I don't like the fact that he seems to have no independently verifiable achievements. Even the Black Belt articles say that everything is based on his claims only. That's like the people who are interviewed because they claim to have seen a UFO, but they have no evidence. I'm reminded of the self-generated Frank Dux notability. Astudent0 (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep. I don't consider USA Dojo, Real Fighting or any article reprinted/hosted on the subjects site to be valid RS's. That said, BB magazine and Inside Kung Fu are certainly RS's and get him barely by. This all smells of Dux. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. These three Black Belt links (one hosted on the subject's website) all appear not to be working at the moment: [http://www.blackbeltmag.com/archives/734], [http://www.moniaizik.info/2010/04/the-article-that-started-it-all-black-belt-2005.html], and [http://www.blackbeltmag.com/moni_aizik/archives/734]. Does anyone have alternative links to these articles or listings? Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

: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.