Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deniz Artun

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 delete. On a pure nose count this could look to be no consensus. However, the assertion that the source material is inadequately in depth toward the subject was not refuted, nor do any "Keep" arguments demonstrate a close analysis of the available source material. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Artun

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 18:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Turkey. Kadı Message 18:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing anything in the article that establishes notability. The sources include 2 couple generic "about the author" entries that would exist for just about any book published. The other 3 sources are just passing mentions of the subject. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's more information about her in the news, major exhibitions she has participated in and major exhibitions she has curated, most notably I-You-They: A Century of Artist Women. Not going to agree with any delete given vague rationale that does not address available sources.--Gazozlu (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gazozlu. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG, amongst other criteria. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I reviewed every source cited in the article and not a one of them that qualifies as an WP:Independent, reliable source discuses the subject of this article in a detailed, descriptive fashion as required by WP:GNG/WP:NOTABILITY: almost all of them mention the subject once, maybe twice, and even then only in completely incidental statements mentioning her as the curator for a facility or exhibit that is the actual focus of the statement and source generally. Further, a number of the sources are simply not WP:RS to begin with. This clearly doesn't come anywhere near the detailed, significant coverage required under GNG, and (meaning no offense), I'd strongly encourage those !voting Keep above to take a second and more detailed look at the actual content of the sources here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost reads like a resume or LinkedIn post, I'm not showing anything substantial, as explained above. Curating an exhibit alone isn't enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:PROMOTION. Alex-h (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2023 (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.