Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Critzos II


 * 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   no consensus.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

John Critzos II

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non notable subject. No indication of importance. Vanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mephisto Panic (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears as though there are numerous articles supporting the keeping of this particular article. The subject, Critzos, seems to have had not only a notable career in the martial arts, but has also been inducted into several Halls of Fame. The assertions are also verified by several unrelated sources. As a noted practitioner who apparently still continues to train at the United States Naval Academy (this too is verified by the USNA web cite), it would appear that this is exactly the type of article that should stay in print as opposed to deletion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.246.136 (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The references in the article itself, ALL lead to independent sources that verify the facts contained in the article itself. Independent web cites, publications, and news articles seem to provide not only notability, but also substantiation. Based on these sources it would appear that the article more than meets the required standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.145.22 (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep if reliable sources can be found and added to the article. The subject appears to be a multiple national champion/finalist, which would demonstrate notability under WP:WPMA/N criterion 4. There are no references provided for these claims in the article, but this is one possible source. The article does need improvement. Janggeom (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A review of the sources cited indicate independent and reliable information and sources. Further, a general internet search indicates that the subject is of notable stature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.154.37 (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have followed this thread and am unsure as to why this article has been re-listed so many times. A review of the article, its links to sources, and a general Google search of the subject reveals that notability has been more than satisfied. Also, the sources are numerous, independent, and authoritative. The style, however, could be somewhat improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.5.1 (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2010 (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.