Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nordine Zouareg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator. On its own merits, this discussion is no consensus leaning towards a keep, and appears to be header further in that direction. lifebaka++ 03:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nordine_Zouareg[edit]

Nordine_Zouareg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I wasn't completely sure about this one, but it looks like the vanity/publicity page for a NN bodybuilder/coach. The biggest problem is in the sourcing-- claims are made that this guy won Mr. France, Mr. Universe, etc., but these all link back to a web site that happens to contain some rankings-- and only one is even vaguely close to the claim (the "Mr. Universe" claim does connect to a winning rank in the 1986 W.A.B.B.A. World Championship). It would be an obvious delete, except I was wondering about the importance of a positive review of his book in Publisher's Weekly. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I cannot find any confirmation that he won those titles--at least none in sources that I trust. If someone knows this subject matter better I would gladly be shown the evidence. That Musclememory site, that's not so authoritative for me. As for the review, to pass muster on the book would require a bit more than a Publisher's Weekly review: do publishers pay for these positive reviews? Drmies (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I spent a bunch of time cleaning up and trying to rescue this article back in the middle of last year. At the time I started it was a complete pov vanity piece. By the time I hacked out everything inappropriate, the remainder was contradictory hence my comments on the talk page. It was me that tagged it for the issues that have not since been resolved. There is too much conflicting info without accurate sourcing for it to exist as a WP:BLP. On a side note, where is the original AfD discussion if this is the 2nd nom? I can't locate it. Mfield (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment re "2nd" nomination." Hmm, I think I did everything right, and at some point I put "afdx" in a template and do not recall explicitly trying to make it a second nom. So I guess I thought the 2nd nom designation was automated. As you may guess, this is somewhat new to me. I removed the 2nd nom box, so at least it no longer "looks" like a 2nd. I suspect the appearance of two more prior AfDs can bias results. A more experienced person could help, maybe? It sure deserves at least a first nomination, at least! Thanks. Jlg4104 (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--His book "Mind over body" has been reviewed by Monster and Critics, Entrepreneur.com and Publisher Weekly. --Jmundo (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Jmundo's input. And to answer Drmies' question: no, publishers don't pay to be in Publishers Weekly -- that's actually a prestigious trade magazine for the U.S. book industry. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Publishers Weekly (note lack of punctuation) is certainly a prestigious trade magazine, but at 7,000 reviews a year, being reviewed there is hardly a guarantee of notability. Bongomatic 09:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully disagree on that. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Inadequate notability as an author--a short review in PW of one book is not sufficient for notability and the other claimed reviews are not significant or reliable.. Notability would have to be as a bodybuilder, if that is actually considered a sport. I think there is no particular standard for who counts as a professional, so i would want to see evidence that the competitions he won are considered notable. DGG (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Entrepreneur.com is the online site for Entrepreneur Magazine, which is a rather prominent U.S. business magazine. Monsters and Critics is a highly regarded U.S. popular culture site. Bodybuilding is considered a sport and it has very distinctive requirements regarding who can advance to the professional rankings. And getting a book reviewed in Publishers Weekly is no mean feat! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just what prize did he win exactly? I do not see him listed for Universe Championships, which seems to be the main one, or for [[World Amateur Bodybuilding Championships], nor do I find him on their web pages. I remain skeptical of how well this sport is organized. I ask for considerably more than these reviews for notability for the author of a single book. I see it is listed in worldCat as present in 258 libraries, but again, its only a single book. There are some claimed professions where I am very skeptical about notability, and "life coach" is one of them. for notabiity in that profession, I think it wise to require multiple mainstream sources. DGG (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My response above has been challenged a number of times on my talk page, but examining the further discussion, I continue to see no evidence that I consider reliable for the prizes. But I'm not exactly an expert in this subject. I do however know that one can claim whatever one cares to on a book jacket, and uncritical media sources copy it. Even news sources if based entirely on such material or press releases should be discounted. The prior bios of authors of books is not a field in which I consider most newspapers at all reliable. DGG (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHe won the 1986 World Championships for the WABBA, among other titles. I assume you are not familiar with bodybuilding (it is a niche sport, admittedly). In that sport, not unlike boxing, has several different leagues. Arnold Schwarzenegger, arguably the most famous bodybuilder, was the champion in the IFBB (where Mr. Zouareg participated towards the end of his sports career). The sport has been around, in its current state, since the end of World War II -- the notion it is not well-organised is not supported in the real world (nearly every country has at least one bodybuilding league -- as an example, check out the article Afghan Muscles to learn about about both the Afghanistan and pan-Asian bodybuilding competitions). And don't rely on Wikipedia for bodybuilding information -- I am part of WikiProject Bodybuilding and it is probably the flabbiest place on the project (the articles need a major overhaul). As for Mr. Zouareg authoring a single book -- yes, and it was published and distributed by a major publishing company. "Life coach" is a euphemism for personal trainer -- nothing unusual about that (it helps sell books, too). Ecoleetage (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When there are 172,000 books published in the US alone a year, being one of the 7,000 is pretty prestigious. travb (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Travb, please...Bongomatic rocks in my book. Just because we have a difference of opinion here doesn't mean his views don't carry value. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I refactored the comments out. travb (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the book refs are in as much dispute as the complete lack of third party, non self published refs about his body building career. If he won all these titles, particularly Mr Universe in 1986 as claimed in the article, why is he not listedin World_Amateur_Bodybuilding_Championships or the ref that supports that article. I am not saying for one moment that he did not win the title of Mr Universe somewhere, its just odd that there are no refs to support it, nor have there been since this article was flagged ages ago and this really needs clarifying as this is a WP:BLP. Mfield (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer As stated earlier -- he won a WABBA title. The article in question is about the IFBB competition. That's a different bodybuilding league. Ecoleetage (talk)
Well, Googling WABBA Mr Universe gets zero results, except for to mention that the IFBB was renamed to WABBA, something that appears to have happened in 1976, well before he supposedly won so he should be in that one. All other Mr Universe results seem to come up as NABBA, that would be Universe_Championships which he also isn't listed in. Why does [7] this search produce not one single listing from an official site of any sort? Mfield (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try putting quotation marks around Mr. Z's name when you do a Google search, like this: [8]. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the four citations? Three books and a magazine article?
WP:INTROTODELETE states that "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article." We are now talking about some content issues, which can be resolved with cleaning up the article. I suggest the nominator close the AfD.
travb (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are hardly books on bodybuilding! (To put it another way, I have little faith in them.) Ecoleetage's Google for the WABBA title gives references that I don't put much stock in, and despite travb's derogatory comment on Bongomatic's remark, I'm personally with Bongo on this one. A short paragraph in a trade journal doesn't cut it for me. Call me a self-appointed deletionist if you will, but if one wants to keep everything, referenced or not, it's almost disingenuous to look for references. I'll shed no tears if this article is kept, and MQS (always good at finding a reference for an obscure celebrity! good work!) may tip the scale for some of you--that's fine. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are nevertheless published books that verify that claim and that are also found on amazon.com. If something is covered in multiple published books, it is worthy of inclusion in some manner or other. Do magazines like Flex or Muscle & Fitness have online archives, because if they do, that's where we should also look. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only title that third party refs support is 1986 WABBA "Overall Winner". The "Mr Universe" (and "Mr. France, Mr. Europe, Mr. World") claim is entirely supported by his own books and website or sites affiliated to him. That's the odd part. These would seem to be big titles that would merit some kind of mention by someone else. Mfield (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These three books call him a a Two-Time Mr. Universe winner. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that is precisely one of my problems with them. First, I simply don't put that much stock in that type of publication (which aren't known, let's face it, for their body-building expertise) to do that kind of verification. Note also that those books have him as "a two-time Mr. Universe bodybuilding champion"--that's not what the WP article claims, or even the MuscleMemory site. Then, the author of the first title Dr. Dharma Singh Khalsa states Zouareg is his "own personal trainer," and Khalsa is also the author of the second, where he says Zouareg is his "good friend." The third book has the exact same phrase, "my good friend and two-time Mr. Universe winner"--so really, I don't put that much stock in any of these books in that regard, given what looks like collusion. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exacty - only the NABBA competition claims the title Mr Universe, and he never competed in that. It is very odd that the only sources that use the term are his own book, or reviews of his own book or are written by his "close friends". If that term was ever used by the WABBA, there would be a mention of it somewhere else. Mfield (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact still remains that the subject of this article is covered in multiple published books. Whether these books are ideal or not doesn't chance the fact that multiple books and as indicated elsewhere other publications have covered this man in some manner or other. References in multiple non-self-published books meets our notability criteria. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I found which cannot be included in the article, is a soloflex blog on the official Soloflex webpage, which also mentions his Mr. Universe title. travb (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just found a nice article about him in the Tucson Weekly and added its sourcing to the article. The article itself is still a little spammy, but that's a matter for WP:CLEANUP and not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing administrator Many new sources have just been added to the article, resolving many of the issues the nominator originally brought up.travb (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This now looks like quite a good article. Johnfos (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per travb - article is now sourced and reads well. If I wasn't on a wikibreak I'd probably have closed this accordingly myself Glen 20:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't buy the notability argument yet. The "source" on Google books is really an author saying that Zouareg is a two-time Mr. Universe. But there's no independent evidence that Zouareg ever was. It could quite easily be a ruse, which to me seems more consistent with the self-promotional nature of the piece (which included a list of dubious links). I don't believe that every "source" is of equal value, and in this case, I still don't see notability. As the nominator, I have been asked (or at least I think it was suggested to me) to withdraw the nomination, as if the discusson has achieved consensus around "keep." Well, I don't see it. And, if an admin believes I'm not right, I'm willing to be corrected-- but I will leave it to a closing admin to do the close. Jlg4104 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He even made the cover of a magazine. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess I'm just following the notability guidelines more strictly than the keepers. Jlg4104 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which he meets: of the millions? of body-builders a fraction appear on the cover of magazines, plus his writings are reviewed in multiple publications, and cited in a couple of other books. We don't need more than that to justify inclusion on a paperless encyclopedia. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure, if you're an inclusionist. I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist. I came across the page and checked into the references. I found what was there to be wanting, that is, so I did some further research and came up with very little to justify notability. People here have worked diligantly, I readily admit, to improve the sourcing, but I still have doubts. I am becoming convinced that this is more a philosophical debate than an AfD discussion. In any event I may withdraw the nomination shortly so as not to belabor the issue. Jlg4104 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am on the phone with Nordine Zouareg, we are trying to find proof of him being Mr. Universe. Zouareg was on the cover of a magazine. In French is says Chapion Du Mone (spelling), champion of the world.[9][10] He also won Mr. Universe in Guadalupe in 1988. Another magazine with him on the cover.[11][12] He brought up a good point, this was 20 years ago, so it is hard to find coverage. travb (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOMINATION WITHDRAWN - ok, here's what I wrote to travb, with whom I've been having a useful discussion: "I think inclusionism has its merits. I certainly do not hang out in AfD so I can tear things down. To me, AfD represents the spirit of discussion and negotiation that goes into the creation of a high-quality articles. Plus, I enjoy doing the research that can result in a "keep" whenever possible. Moreover, I have done my best-- even though I am new-- to RTFM and continue to do so. So I hope you understand that my M.O. is to help make this wonderful thing called Wikipedia even better. This whole bodybuilder case strikes me as a really important kind of "test case" for the development of WP's whole raison d'etre in light of its users. That's partly why I was primed to respond negatively to any call to close it-- the discussion itself helps to clarify not only the case at hand, but also related concepts such as verifiability and notability." That said, I am worried that what's happened here is that an inclusionist wind blew through the debate and skewed the outcome a bit. But since I cannot be 100% objective at this point, and since at least some progress has been made on the notability and verifiability fronts, I am respectfully, and in good faith, withdrawing the nomination. Jlg4104 (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nordine_Zouareg&oldid=1069639422"