Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barış Kıralioğlu

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 delete‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barış Kıralioğlu

[edit]

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

Barış Kıralioğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not think that the person has an encyclopedic value and during research, only sites with advertising references come up. Redivy (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The cited references in the article demonstrate the subject's notability according to WP:NACTOR, highlighting their significant roles in multiple notable TV Shows and stage performances. Please note that sources such as Cumhuriyet, Hurriyet and Tiyatronline (for theater productions) are in general considered to be among the most reliable sources for Turkey-related subjects. In addition to this, there are many more references related to their roles in other productions that they contributed, which are not yet cited. @Redivy, could you provide an assessment of the references with regard to this criteria and explain why you believe the references do not support the subject's notability? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – This recently went through an AfD on the Turkish Wikipedia, where it was deleted as participants agreed that the person did not meet the subject-specific guideline. I find this important to note as WP:NBIO and its trwiki counterpart have the exact same wording when it comes to actors and their roles. Sources cited in the article are mostly namedrops and have no significant coverage on the subject, barring a few non-independent interviews. Fails both the relevant SNG and the GNG. Styyx (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Styyx: Could you explain why you believe the criteria in WP:NACTOR is not satisfied? "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". I'd like to note that the same exact question remains unanswered in the Turkish Wikipedia discussion, and many of the editors there, including the nominator, did not elaborate on any of the references brought up in the discussion, and there was nothing similar to a WP:BEFORE. For comparison, I'd like also to mention a comparable AfD discussion that resulted in a speedy keep on Turkish Wikipedia, due to the actor criteria that I cited, so I am really puzzled to understand why the same criteria was not used for Baris Kiralioglu. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because his roles are not significant enough; he is named last or at least very close to last in most of the sources listing the actors in a production. You can't have an indefinite amount of significant roles in a series so much so that every single actor playing passes NBIO. Also note that just passing NBIO is only an indication that sources might exist and that the subject still may be not notable if those are not found. Throwing every single source in the article where the person is barely mentioned instead of focusing on a few select sources where the person is covered significantly is not helping your case here either. Styyx (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, @Styyx, for taking the time to respond. As far as I know, there is no Wikipedia guideline suggesting that the order of actors in listings can be used to determine their significance. Wouldn't it be better to leverage reliable sources for determining significance? I think this article in Hurriyet definitely demonstrates that his role in İçerde was significant enough. His portrayal of the former Turkish prime minister in Pocket Hercules: Naim Suleymanoglu was mentioned in multiple news outlets such as NTV and he appeared in the official trailer, so I believe his role there is significant as well. Also, what about all those theater plays he acted in and directed? Regarding finding sources with significant coverage: some of the cited sources are high-quality interviews with detailed introductions. Other than that, we have significant, in-depth coverage for the works that he has significantly contributed to, which establishes his notability. After notability is established, primary sources can be cited for noncontroversial biographical information for the article content. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, one thing to add is that the reference list is still likely to be incomplete due to various reasons:
    a) Istanbul has a very rich journalism culture; however, not all newspaper or periodical archives are available online.
    b) Kiralioglu seems to have professional collaborations with Italian artists, and we might have missed sources in Italian.
    c) A number of local or national Turkish news sources gets to shut down every year or so, and as a result, their archives are no longer available online. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The order used by reliable sources is just common sense. If you are the tenth actor to be listed somewhere, then your role is not significant. I still maintain the opinion that the subject is not covered in-depth by reliable and independent sources; furthermore notability can not be based on the assumption that sources exist. I find it very unlikely that they do anyway, given that none of the sources that do exist are of high-quality, so it's an ambitious stretch to suggest that all the in-depth coverage about this person ceased to exist or exists very deep. The theater plays where he did have significant roles are not notable on their own. Styyx (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again @Styyx for contributing to this discussion. My final remark on ordering would be about the deletion discussion for Güzin Çorağan in Turkish Wikipedia, during which you were an administrator, I believe. I just checked the official opening credits of the show Bizimkiler, and she appeared 25th in the listing. And you had no objection for her role being considered significant there. Barış Kıralioğlu appears within the first 5 or 10 actors in these kinds of credit lists. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment on that AfD was an informational note about the involvement of sock puppets to the administrator wishing to close the discussion. There is no remark on notability, nor do I remember evaluating the article in the first place (and for the record, I have never been an admin on the Turkish Wikipedia). Styyx (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Styyx. Aintabli (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Aintabli. I'd like to briefly recap what I would consider to be potential problems in Styyx's arguments.
    a) Although WP:NACTOR is very likely to be satisfied here, they don't accept it due to an unjustified argument that his name doesn't appear within the first 3-4 names on actor lists. However, major Turkish news outlets like NTV have published news stories where Kiralioglu's role in a production is even mentioned in the article headline. One could easily regard this as equivalent to being listed at rank 1.
    b) Styyx does not recognize that once a specific notability guideline is satisfied, it is considered highly plausible that reliable sources exists for the subject except for rare cases, even if we have not reached them yet. With it, the burden of proof for showing the absence of sources shifts to the other side.
    c) SNGs could function independently from the GNG (as with academics or geographical places). It's not explicitly stated whether WP:NACTOR should only serve as an indication that sources might exist or if it is regarded as an alternative presumption of notability. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Playing a significant person does not always equate to having a significant role. The plot only covering that character briefly doesn't suddenly make it a significant role, even if it's the president, in this case. So no, one could not easily regard this as having the main role in a title.
    I have already stated above why I find it unlikely that sources exist. If you do, however, want proof of the absence of sources after the burden somehow fell on me, here are some additional sources I have found: __. Do I even have to say this?
    From NPROF: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline". In this passage it is explicitly stated that NPROF works different than other SNG's, with NBIO (which includes NACTOR) being used as an example. An SNG overriding the GNG is an exception, not the norm; NBIO is not one of those rare instances. The only other times this is the case is at NASTRO (only kind of, since it requires sources as well) and NCORP, which has even stricter requirements for sourcing than the GNG. All others use the terms "may" or "likely" when talking about notability. Styyx (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per TheJoyfulTentmaker. Kolhisli (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Styyx. Sources are brief mentions or interviews which are primary sources. His roles are not significant enough to meet NACTOR. S0091 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for contributing to the discussion, @S0091, really appreciate your time. One thing to note is that there is no general agreement about whether interviews should be considered to be primary or secondary sources, as discussed in WP:INTERVIEWS. Also, I was wondering if you could tell more about how you determine the insufficient significance of his roles in a) films like İçerde and Cep Herkülü, and b) theater plays, such as Karanlıkta Komedi, and Müfettiş. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Styyx has already explained why Kıralioğlu does not meet the significant roles criteria so I am not going to cover that ground again other than to state I agree with their assessment. For interviews, anything he says about himself is primary, per both the policy (read both primary including note d and secondary) and the essay which states The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. Above, you tout this interview as "high-quailty" but is a Q&A with a standard introduction which is a couple sentences about him as were the others. At this point you veering into WP:BLUDGEONING the process so you might consider stepping back. S0091 (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some final remarks... Firstly, let me clearly state that I have no conflict of interest with this subject, if anyone was wondering. I came across its deletion discussion on the Turkish Wikipedia, and after that, I created the English stub. It remained a stub for more than a month until this AfD was created. My questions were honest, sorry to hear that S0091 considers them to be bludgeoning. The author of the bludgeoning essay accepts that it is often misused, by the way. If it was already clear to everyone except to me that the two Wikipedians would be in perfect agreement with regards to a) significance in this context is determined by being within the first 3 or 4 actors in a listing and b) the theater works should be considered non-notable even though they have received significant coverage in the Turkish mainstream media, then I apologize for my last question. Regarding interviews, the footnote d in primary states that, whether an interview is primary or secondary is context-dependent. In the ones provided, I believe there are sufficient remarks by the interviewer throughout the interview such that those would constitute information from a secondary source. It is not easy to get an interview in Hurriyet, as one can easily guess. Also, NBIO states that if a single source is not in-depth, then information from multiple sources can be combined, so the sources contribute to notability, even if we did not have NACTOR. --TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Styyx source eval. I agree found sources are database records, name mentions, or interviews, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. If someone finds WP:THREE sources meeting WP:SIGCOV, ping me.  // Timothy :: talk  21:41, 18 February 2024 (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/Barış_Kıralioğlu&oldid=1208858260"