Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Turkey

Scan for Turkey related AfDs Scan for Turkey related Prods Scan for Turkey related TfDs

Mehmet Abbasoğlu (businessman)

Mehmet Abbasoğlu (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG or relevant specefic criteia. Not enough independent significant coverage.

• Source 1: Petrol Ofisi reached a market share of 23.09 percent (translated), Reliable? Unknown (likely), Independent? Yes, Significant coverage? No
• Source 2:Petrol Ofisi CEO Abbasoğlu: Our only bottleneck is our roads (translated) Reliable? Not likely, Significant coverage? No (Routine coverage of a conference, only quotes the CEO's statement)
• 3:Petrol Ofisi Group accelerates investments in line with Turkey's national energy strategy, Reliable? Not likely (State-run), Significant coverage? No (About company announcements, not the subject of the article)
• 4:Vitol-owned Petrol Ofisi agrees to purchase BP’s Turkish fuel operations, Reliable? Unknown, Independent? No (Publisher owns the company), Significant coverage? No (One-line mention)
• 5:404-error
• 6:Turkey’s Petrol Ofisi announces new chief executive officer, Reliable? No (Likely an advertisement), Independent? No (Likely an advertisement, no bylines, promotional tone, likely WP:RSNOI applies), Significant coverage? No (Mainly discusses company position changes, not the subject)
• 7:Change of general manager at Petrol Ofisi, Press release citing company statement
• 8:How A Gritty Market Leader Transformed Out Of A ‘Doomed’ Industry, Forbes contributor promo, not reliable by itself, further it's mostly an interview so primary source
• 9:Mehmet Abbasoğlu became the General Manager of Petrol Ofisi, similar to source 7, Press release citing a company statement
• Sources 10-16, more of the same. Waste of time and energy detailing here.

X (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Excluding the material from Forbes and sources where the person is an employee or director, the references seem fine. These are all valid references for a corporate executive. Newspaper articles aren't press releases; while a company announcement may be the starting point for a newspaper story about an executive appointment, the newspaper makes its own decisions about whether the announcement is newsworthy and what to include. Anadolu Agency is a legitimate news agency despite being state-run, although some caution is needed when considering its coverage of politics. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In my view, appointment news (yes technically may not be Press releases, but the specific references I mentioned as PR merely report anything independent but relay/quote the company statement) fo-shizzle falls under routine coverage. X (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dou Kalender

Dou Kalender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I stumbled across this article. It wasn't very big, but I made it even smaller as it is unsourced. Originally, the only source was the band's website, but that no longer exists (I've removed it). It's an orphan. The image is on no other language project, including the Turkish one. Although it was created over 10 years ago, only one person has it on their watchlist. That said, I know nothing about band singers, especially foreign ones and have not done WP:BEFORE. If editors think it should be kept, this AfD will hopefully serve to improve the facial notability of the subject and the quality of the article itself. Fails WP:SINGER. Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey. Kpgjhpjm 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I won't spend as much time rewriting my comment, because the WP:XFDVOTE tool did not save my comment. Simply put, I couldn't find reliable independent sources on him. There is possible COI as the creator's sole contribution was this biography for more than a decade. The band could be luckier in terms of notability, but it interestingly lacks an article, and after a quick search, I am unsure if there is sufficient coverage out there. I would, however, support redirecting this to an article about the band if it ever gets created during this discussion. Aintabli (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaşınhan railway station

Kaşınhan railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. Fails WP:BUILDING/WP:NTRAINSTATION, not seeing significant coverage outside of routine non-independent service announcements from Turkish State Railways and passing mentions which confirm this train station exists, but not that it's notable. The only source in the article doesn't even namecheck the subject. Possible redirect target: Konya–Yenice railway. Pilaz (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Pilaz (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why has this specific article been tagged after years? I find these requests very puzzling, as there are numerous articles like this, not just for Turkish railways, but around the world. While editing Turkish railway articles, my goal is to add and bring them up to the standard of American railway articles, hence the article on individual railway stations. If this article will be deleted, does that mean every station in Turkey, except the large one, will follow suite? Of course additions can be made, given time (I work full-time). The history can be added regarding the Baghdad railway, hosting the famous Taurus express along with its rebuilding to accommodate HSTs. In any case, this article should be kept and NOT deleted. Cheers. (Central Data Bank (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

New page patrollers check whether new articles conform to Wikipedia's core content policies. I found this article through the New pages feed, and, despite its age, it was yet to be reviewed. As far as community guidelines go, articles may be deleted if they don't meet the general notability guideline or one of many specific notability guidelines. In this case, a cursory search of sources turned up little to show that this two-platform station is notable, hence why it is brought here for broader community review. Pilaz (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More than likely they will be deleted, unless you can find significant sourcing for each building. We don't have much of anything here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well then as a patroller, please tell me the difference between this article and, for example, Alderson station. Both have more or less the same amount of info provided. I am asking, so I can update Kasinhani station to keep the article. And if we are going to firesale and begin to destroy the whole Turkish railway community on wikipedia, why has Kasinhani been singled out? Why not go on to delete all the others, except the large notable ones? My point being, this seems to be an act of prejudicial(?) selection, not following any consistent form of wider article selection other than singling out a random article and nominating it for deletion. Yes, I am frustrated in this situation, because it is very random, and without logic, unless ALL other similar articles would follow suite. (Not just in Turkey, but all over the world) (Central Data Bank (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

All buildings require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability per WP:NBUILDING. The fact that that article hasn't been nominated doesn't mean it's necessarily notable or abiding by Wikipedia notability guidelines. And no, you article wasn't singled out: railway station articles are routinely brought to AfD, see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puksinhyon station. So, unless anyone can find significant coverage for this building (basically: has anyone ever written about this train station in detail?), this article does not meet our notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything. Pilaz (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless there is some sort of heritage designation for the building, there likely isn't much on it. This is all I could find [2], which is trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pdf you have shared is a great resource for stations in Turkey actually, thank you for finding it. (Central Data Bank (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep without prejudice to a discussion about all the stations on the line as a group. There is no benefit to the encyclopaedia from singing out random examples from a set of similar articles. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish exonyms

Turkish exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I've been everywhere, man. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm also nominating this, for the same reason. Note, there was a previous discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish names for cities, towns, villages and geographical locations in Bulgaria in 2008.

List of Turkish exonyms in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Turkish exonyms in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PepperBeast (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, and Lists. PepperBeast (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bulgaria and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk)
• Comment I’m not sure if this should be kept or not, but if kept it should be drastically culled. It is arguably useful for an English speaker to learn that Arnavutluk means Albania, but most of the items in this gigantic and largely pointless list are not exonyms at all, they’re just Turkish spellings or minor pronunciation changes from the local name. Mccapra (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If there were anything to say about the exonyms, it might be worth having. —Tamfang (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I was going to urge the nominator to additionally nominate all or most of the exonym lists they could find (such as German exonyms and plenty others), but apparently such a discussion already took place here a few weeks ago and resulted in no consensus. I don't see a specific argument made for the Turkish exonyms here. Therefore, I don't also find it logical to single out one of the lists. It would be much better if the List of Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria is discussed as part of another AfD. That discussion would not likely justify the deletion of a much more general page as Turkish exonyms. The Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria could be more easily deleted based on WP:TNT as it is poorly sourced or a sound rationale. (Just referencing a 15-year-old discussion is not enough.) Aintabli (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not singling out. I'm just doing this at a slower pace. The original AFD got no consensus a least in part because there was too much there for one discussion. Sheesh, I'm beginning to feel like I can do no right, here. PepperBeast (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The mass deletion proposal failed because not all of the exonym lists are equally trivial. French has already been renominated, and I expect others to follow. —Tamfang (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be nice to see some examples of the non-trivial exonym lists for contrast. Aintabli (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure there was any such sortening, though you can certainly read through the previous discussion. I'm going to be doing some more re-nominating, but I'm conscious of both the possibility of overwhelming the AFD-sphere with too many requests and restraints on my own time, so I'm absolutely not going to be trying to blast them all out at once. PepperBeast (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I can't say I have a strong feeling about the removal of the lists of exonyms, which was covered by the discussion in March. But seeing that this nomination currently singles out one of the lists for no reason and makes no strong points, I am against deletion. As I have pointed out, it should be discussed as part of a bundled nomination with all the other exonym lists. After a few weeks or months, the AfD from March may be followed up with an identical bundled nomination to form a solid consensus. Aintabli (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The "strong point" is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Additional points are that this is poorly ref'd and that much of the content isn't even exonyms; it's just Turkish spellings of place names. PepperBeast (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Current state of the article and its content are irrelevant when it comes to AfDs unless it’s WP:TNT. NOTDICTIONARY was also brought up in the previous discussion, which lacked consensus. The lack of a strong point is mainly rooted in how there is no demonstration of the list’s triviality. Examples of lists to keep could be helpful for example. Aintabli (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: delete both as just what you would find in a dictionary Chidgk1 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Mccapra, Tamfang, Aintabli, and Chidgk1: I added List of Turkish exonyms in Greece to this discussion. PepperBeast (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just needs editing clean-up but there are a multitude of sources on this including books and from the UN, and it doesn't really fall into dictionary land. [3] [4], and there are probably additional sources in the Turkish. This needs cleanup, but not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But the articles don’t exist on Turkish Wikipedia as far as I can tell Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Turkish Wikipedia is in a horrible state even when it comes to Turkish-related topics. Regardless, it's not relevant. Aintabli (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see @Ushuaia1: has put a lot of effort in but as the Greece one has been unsourced for so many years I think that should also be deleted. I suggest Ushuaia1 publish the ex-Ottoman names such as Greece and Bulgaria outside Wikipedia as original research so they could explain their methods - for example if they talked to local people they could detail their recordings or correspondance or whatever as annexes to their paper. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is clearly a personal work, in the form of an unwelcome scientific paper, which, though, lacks the necessary attributes for Wikipedia inclusion; mainly, independent notability. The term itself is not encountered in most of the sources cited. A clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS full of slippery verbiage, of which the project is more than tired. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As indicated in the project's title, this text had been taken down after a brief discussion in 2009. Why it has been allowed to re-surface without anything of substance added to it will remain a mystery, which is probably best preserved. -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a useful article. Lionel Cristiano^? 22:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you use it? —Tamfang (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  this article provides information to the reader. Lionel Cristiano^? 09:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason to keep. PepperBeast (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Every junk article "provides information to the reader," at least in the eyes of its creator. How do you use the information? —Tamfang (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Or we can combine it with the Turkish language article. Lionel Cristiano^? 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's clearly sources we can use that can be used to source the list, it's been discussed as a set, as I've shown. So in that sense, yes, it is "useful." SportingFlyer T·C 21:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:TNT, this is an unsourced WP:OR dictionary, most of the items do not have articles, but when they do the wl'd article rarely provides referenced support for the entry. TNT will provide an editor the opportunity to build a sourced article without this baggage.  // Timothy :: talk  00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ağa hamamı

Ağa hamamı (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, as I pointed out at the talk page a while ago. The only source used here is the hammam's own commercial website, which is not a reliable source. It also makes the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that the hammam was built in 1454, the same year of the Ottoman conquest of the city, which would make it one of the oldest Ottoman buildings in the city, if not the oldest. This has no support in actual reliable sources, which make no mention of this (e.g. see references at Tahtakale Hamam, which discuss the oldest hammams and other known Ottoman structures from this era). Judging by the choice of source and by the page creator, I'm also starting to suspect this was a WP:COI. R Prazeres (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. R Prazeres (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: if anyone is looking up Ağa hamamı in sources, keep in mind that there is at least one other "Ağa hamamı" (or "Aga Hamam" etc) in the Samatya neighbourhood of Istanbul and there may be other hammams with the same name elsewhere. R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The Kapıağası Yakup Ağa Hamamı, often just known as Ağa Hamamı. And that one is far more notable and appears in guidebooks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: I think the comment below was to check explicitly if you support keeping or deleting? Or no opinion? R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I didn't express an opinion one way or the other. I merely commented. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What outcome would you like to see happen?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Covered by timeout, stating "built in 1454 by Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror and was used privately by the Sultan and his male heirs." Clearly is a significant term of use. This in turn points that the place has some strong historical context. You would have thought with that, this should have plenty of WP:OFFLINE sources. Lonelyplanet snippet, cityseeker snippet. arnoldreview? Covered by [5]. Obviously it needs better sourcing, but due to the little coverage there is, which shows it's historical age and aspect shows there should be plenty more sources out there that should be able to use. Unless it's all bullshit history trying to get people through the door. Well, that's possible, but that really requires a different kind of investigation. For now, I am on the little of what google provides. Govvy (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SIGCOV requires that a topic "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This isn't the case here. Of course a business can be found in blogs and review sites, like those you've linked; my local pizza restaurant would fit that criteria too, but that doesn't make it WP:NOTABLE. The last link you provided ([6]) is also not the same place, it's the Samatya hammam mentioned above.

  As mentioned, the historical claim has no support in RS. Even the normally quite thorough Turkish Islam Ansiklopedisi has nothing about it. Whether the claim is deliberate bullshit I won't say, but it certainly doesn't satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY. R Prazeres (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can see, the claim made in the article is false. Turkish Airlines has covered some hamams of Istanbul, and notes that the building itself was indeed built in 1454 as a hunting house. However, it only became a hamam after 1923. So that would perhaps make it the oldest building that has a hamam in it, but not the oldest operational hamam in the city. Basically some smart wording/PR trick coming from the website of the business that runs it to label this as the oldest, which we have taken over directly without elaboration because.... the creator of this article is likely the owner himself. Sources published post-2014 (i.e. since the creation of this article) paraphrase about the same 3 sentences found in the Turkish Airlines blog, so I won't bother to list them here.

So I looked for sources before that date, and the only thing that came up was a book from 2010 on Istanbul hamams by the municipality (which I would consider to be much more reliable than any source mentioned above). There are 2 hamams in the book named "Ağa Hamamı", ours is located on page 41, easily identifiable as the book mentions the street its located on. This book gives a completely different history: it was built in 1562—already a hamam—and the income was used to fund the Fenerbahçe Lighthouse. Both the inside and outside have been renovated several times and there is nothing "historic" about the building anymore. The book also says that the building is described in the Istanbul Encyclopedia of Reşad Ekrem Koçu. I'd say that the building is notable, but not the business itself. Since our article currently only serves the latter with incorrect information, I don't think this can stay without a TNT. So yeah, delete unless anyone wants to clean this up. Styyx (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this great research (that 2010 book is a nice find). I just want to add: even a claim about the building itself being a hunting lodge built in 1454 is undoubtedly wrong, and a Turkish Airlines blog wouldn't count as reliable source for that either. R Prazeres (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the Istanbul Encyclopedia on archive.org. Volume 1, pages 241–243 are about this hamam, if anyone wants to use it. It indeed notes that it's a 16th-century building, so I think this confirms that the story in the article is fully made up. Styyx (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG and NGEO. Single source in article is to the subject's own website. BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if WP:SIRS is found, Styyx's TNT idea may be the best solution, if sources are ever found it can be created without the baggage.  // Timothy :: talk  23:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Yıldız

Fatih Yıldız (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, I don't want to mention WP:NPOL here at all because it does not apply. Just being an ambassador does not guarantee notability, especially if they do not pass WP:GNG independently. BEFORE returns nothing to establish GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Asia, Iraq, and Turkey. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Numerous secondary, independent sources providing significant coverage exist to demonstrate notability. Some are cited in the article. Most are in Turkish but that is not an impediment to their use to demonstrate notability nor to their use on English Wikipedia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You and I know that that is not the case here, there's no source here to establish GNG, this is not a matter of whether the language of the sources is Turkish or not, sources can be translated if they're not in English. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Vanderwaalforces, please don't make assumptions about what I might know. [7], [8], [9], [10] are a few examples that go to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My rationale/comment does not read like I am making an assumption, Dclemens1971. You should read comments properly. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You literally wrote "you and I know," which makes a statement about me -- a statement that is definitionally an assumption since we have never interacted before this AfD. Please keep the debate focused on policies, not on what "you and I know." I came here in good faith to offer a policy-based opinion after reviewing available sources. I'm done with this discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. BLP, sources in article and BEFORE did not show WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found name mentions in connection to statements they made, but these have nothing to do with the subject, but statements made in relation to their job. BLPs require strong sourcing and an individual does not inherit notability from the position they hold.  // Timothy :: talk  23:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey/Article alerts, a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting Turkey related pages including deletion discussions