Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John James Nazarian


 * 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. The consensus below is that, as improved, the article demonstrates notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

John James Nazarian

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Private investigator for the rich and famous. Lots of claims of importance, but all of them unreferenced by third-party sources. Possible borderline G11 speedy, but even by taking out the promotional material one comes up with an unsourceable article. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral Comment - "...celebrity guest commentator on news and magazine shows..." - This itself does not establish notability, but the fact he's appearing on these shows - doesn't this have the same effect as being reported on in the news? CycloneGU (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends which shows we're talking about, and whether that can be verified. The same sentence that lists these shows further down the article also lists a few newspapers that have interviewed him, but the links are to the home pages of said newspapers, and nothing turns up on Google News. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment (generally positive) - there are many links here and there, but they are done very badly and could be missed. So this one backs up his claim to have commented on Discovery programmes, and I fairly easily found some more functioning links which genuinely refer to the subject. My instinct is that this subject is notable because of media appearances; however the article is absurdly long and was clearly written by a fan of the subject rather than from an NPOV. I mean, it's lovely that he loves animals and kids (pardon me while I vomit), but this isn't what Wikipedia's for. I would recommend keeping the article but shortening it to 5-10% of its current length, just keeping the notable stuff and eliminating the dross.Asnac (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Asking for guidance as I said I was doing it in my own user space and had not finished putting all of the links to it. I had not finished the final documented yet, for instance all of the news programs he has referred to, the German magazine article that him on it.  I can also go back and in the articles listed although some of them are all about him. The ones with him in it find the page it is and link to that page only.  Would it help to get quotes from the high profile cases he works on?  Actually how many PI's becomes a household name in Hollyweird?  He is not dog the bounty hunter but he is also not the common PI. either.  I run a large site on legal discussions and have to do an article and put some paperwork up, however after that I will be back later today to continue to reference it to news articles in the U. K., Australia, the German magazine, etc. Thanks for the input.  User:JodyD2010  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyD2010 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The draft is still in your user space, and will not be affected by the outcome of this discussion (except if we deem it unsalvageable, which does not appear to be the case here). That means you have no deadline. But to make the article stay in the mainspace, you should concentrate on finding the actual URLs of the newspaper clips and TV shows you are using as references (if not available online, then the date of publication/broadcast will be sufficient), not merely the home pages of those media outlets. There is plenty of material that would make this man worthy of a Wikipedia article, but none of what you posted is verifiable as it stands, and I am having trouble finding references of my own.
 * Also, there's a lot of trivial stuff in the article that doesn't belong in encyclopedic coverage, but that's another story and deletion discussions only deal with what's left behind once we remove such fluff. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article has improved a great deal over the last few days. Delete. I have never read an article that screams more of "I love me" ever. This is an arrogantly written, "look at how wonderful I am" article, and the guy is just a P.I. for undisclosed celebrities.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 16:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)   Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a quote in one of the articles I was researching; "John Nazarian, a colorful as well as a controversial private investigator" I have no problem moving it back to my user space and dealing with any stalkers or those who hate this man, being new it was unsettling to see it on page one of Google while still in rough draft on my user page and I had intended to keep it in my user space and then send some pictures to an editor to look at that can be used (I. E. one walking the Manson girls to trial) and do more research and in news publications or news talk show and be sure the link are to the page he is one (I. E. the German Magazine called Der Spiegel in which he was photographed by Robert Gallagher), I think the English version is out now and can be read by an international audience. I think a gay activist who took a stand and put his job on the line is notable to me. I guess this is a case of color me very embarrassed. It had been suggested by one of the celebrities he worked with to use their Wiki page as a guide, well that has ended up not to be good advice. Ok I have to do my real job for a bit, but I wanted to join Wikipedia and help because of the asking for help to keep Wikipedia a free source and since I use Wikipedia so often I wanted to give back, however I am very red face, feeling lost in this new environment and so sorry I upset all of you who do this all of the time. I have great respect for all of you and appreciate the work you do for those of us who do use Wikipedia as an independent source on almost a daily basis.JoeyD2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyD2010 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The very strange footnotes section and copious weblinks in the body indicates to me that we're dealing with a new editor here. This article, in its current form, isn't ready for primetime. Userfy. I'm not sure whether there are extant sources, but there is enough effort showing here that we should give the editor the benefit of the doubt for the time being by deleting without any prejudice against recreation of an article on the subject. I have no opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. I do think we need to move the piece out of article space until it has a chance of making it through the AfD gauntlet. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy per Carrite. He does show up in some news stories.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stalkers? Who said any of us were stalking you?  That is a mere presumption of bad faith; someone came across the article, thought it didn't belong on Wikipedia, and nominated it for deletion.  None of the rest of us even knew about the article or who you were, and even if the article is deleted (with no bias on userfying), we still don't have any interest in following you around.  As another user said, you appear to be a newer user, so we welcome you with open arms and hope you will learn more about editing and that you will enjoy editing here.  Just remember to always assume good faith.  People tend to be friendlier if you do. =)  CycloneGU (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * CycloneGU, I did not mean that anyone connected with Wikipedia would stalk anyone. What I meant was a jumped into the fire with an article and did not know that by keeping it on my user page while I worked on it and then asked for help that it would appear on Google page one with my user name and the name of the article.  I think we have all ran into nuts on the internet.  HOWEVER, I have seen none of that from you or anyone here.... I am a perfectionist and I jumped into quicksand before I asked for help or a rope to get me out... I would never assume anything but good and dedicated editors here with the desire to make Wikipedia what it is today and what it will continue to be. --JoeyD2010 (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, and I appreciate the kind post on my talk page as well. I now understand what you meant, and that is how Google works; when I was a staff member on a discussion forum many years ago (maybe two or three for my last one to date), I always used to see a Google bot come in and look at all the threads it could, which it then uses in its archiving system.  What makes this sorta cool is that I can look up something in a post that Google has indexed if I remember enough of the post.  I once found an old Wii numbers thread I had participated in by using Google to find it, in fact.  Google works the sameway here; as we speak, one (possibly many more) of those "spiders" is waltzing around here archiving every page it has access to (which, frankly, is every single one from a category to a template to an article on Don Juan to April fools/April Fools' Day 2011).  Anything you post on Wikipedia is searchable through Google, even if it's not ready for prime time yet.  During the small amount of time my first unique article was userfied to my page (which it isn't now), I would be doing a Google search for him and it would show up from my userspace in the search with my nickname before it; to say it like Mr. T, I pity the foo who thought his nickname was CycloneGU. =D  CycloneGU (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - If the creating editor needs specific advice about formatting or content, I'd be happy to help. Leave me a message on my "Talk" page if you have a query. Carrite (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Carriet I did leave you a message on your talk page, thanks to all of you for the warm welcome and the congenial offer to help me anyway any of you kind. As I said on your talk page; "By tonight I am so frazzled trying to go through the internet and find third sources that shows Nazarian has been around and interviewed since 1996 forward... I have found them and now the numbers shows but the reference does not, of course I am such a perfectionist I am sure in a panic to fix it I have missed something that is probably simple to most of you. I think I now understand that this is like a college Thesis and needs to have everything back upped and footnoted." --JoeyD2010 (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got it. Check your talk page and stay in touch, we'll get this thing shaped up and through the gauntlet. Carrite (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is a new editor at WP who is just learning the ropes. This piece got tagged for speedy deletion 2 minutes after creation (!!!) and dragged to AfD not long after that. Hopefully and presumably notability will be demonstrated and the article rendered nice and pretty by the end of the AfD week, but in the event of a Delete outcome — unlikely I hope — will the closing administrator please be sure to userfy this page. It's hard to master all the intricacies of layout and all the rules of the road at WP in just 7 days under the pressure of having one's work annihilated. I feel reasonably secure that this is a "Keeper" subject when the smoke clears, but there's still a bit of smoke to be cleared and that takes some time... Carrite (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * TBH, I was wondering why the AfD wasn't just immediately closed and added at the top of the article...  CycloneGU (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Fairly massive LA Times feature article specifically on Nazarian showing in the footnotes, which should get him about 97% over the notability bar as the subject of that piece alone. Nazarian also figures in the best-selling book BLONDE AMBITION in a non-trivial capacity. A very high profile private investigator with copious third party coverage out there. Frequent expert commentator on crime matters on television. Article cleanup proceeds apace. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a keep as per WP:HEY - good work by a couple of contributors over the last few days.Asnac (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Another good source treating Nazarian in a non-trivial way is Martin Lasden, "The Pellicano Effect," California Lawyer, October 2006. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Recommend "keep" closure given the amount of work done on the article since the nomination. No sense to run this for three more days.  If an AfD is still somehow necessary, let it be on the new article.  CycloneGU (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP I have gone back and learned how to reference correctly and the coding to do those. The main media quotes go from 1997 through the present as well as the "The Pellicano Effect," California Lawyer, October 2006. ; that Nazarian figures in the best-selling book BLONDE AMBITION; and two L. A. Times Articles that deal with Nazarian and his work - "He's No Angel, He's a P.I.," Los Angeles Times, June 13, 2006 and "A Profitable Eye on Inevitable Infidelity," L.A. Times, December 28, 2000. Then there are the main stream news media shows like CBS and NBC. I also want to thank all of you for your kind suggestions, words of welcome and encouragement. I am still cleaning up the article for dates and if this ends in a "keep" consensus I am going to look for an agent or PR person to approve the use of a picture "I hope"...  I look forward to working in the biography part of Wikipedia, one of the things that made me decide to become an editor is all of you seem to give so much for free to such a great cause and I want to help update those pages in the biography sections that need an update or reference tags on the articles.  Thanks again for the help and the very warm welcome I have received. --JoeyD2010 (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)--JoeyD2010 (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2011 (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.