Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burak Davutoğlu

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. Kurykh (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burak Davutoğlu

[edit]
Burak Davutoğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor who doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Provided sources (entirely in Turkish--evaluation based on machine translation) are entirely lists of credits, iMDB-type listings and passing mentions, with no articles found specifically about him. No idea about notability of claimed awards. Corresponding article on tr.wiki is by the same author with the same material and sourcing. --Finngall talk 15:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 15:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 15:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 15:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - First, even if it were his own Twitter account that had 900k followers, it would be irrelevant--the accounts of these others mean even less. The article on the Turkish Wiki means nothing, as different wikis operate independently and can have widely varying standards for inclusion.
Looking at the first several listed references in detail:
  1. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the article in question does not mention the subject.
  2. Does not mention the subject.
  3. Does not mention the subject.
  4. Does not mention the subject.
  5. Does not mention the subject.
  6. Does not mention the subject.
  7. Passing mention.
  8. Does not mention the subject.
  9. Does not mention the subject.
  10. Passing mention.
I haven't looked closely at the most recent batch of additions, but when I looked at the first couple of sets of references, there was nothing but irrelevant links, mentions in cast lists, other passing mentions, and nothing more substantial than a sentence or two about his performance as part of a larger theater review. There are no articles specifically about him, and nowhere is there the depth of coverage about him and his career which is required for the sourcing of a proper encyclopedia article about him. You could include a hundred more references like the ones provided so far, and it still would not add up to satisfy the standard of substantial coverage in reliable sources which we normally ask for. --Finngall talk 22:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I smell a lot of sockpuppetry.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has far too many sources but there are enough reliable, verifiable and accessible sources defining the subject, especially in French and Turkish. English grammar could be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this article has grown from when the AfD was proposed to 27,043 bytes, and incease of 15,425. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Appears potential socking is going on. With less weight given to potential socks, this needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Dane that sock puppets made comments. I posted welcomes and advice on commenting, and nothing happened there. If they contributed elsewhere, registered IP as users, or otherwise respondend, we could beleve they are real people. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are 68 references listed and when I start randomly looking at them, none meet criteria for significant coverage from an independent, reliable source. Maybe there's something in the ridiculously long list, but I doubt it. Multiple "keep" comments from unsigned sources makes me suspect someone is not acting in good faith.Glendoremus (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With less/no weight given to socks and only two confirmed non-sock participants with contrasting views (other than nom) this definitely needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 16:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Since this article has been listed at AFD, it has been reference-bombed WP:BOMBARD with over 50 new sources. Always a "red-flag". Very doubtful any editor is going to spend 1 - 2 hours to check all of them, (which i will do if there are 20 or less) nor should we have to. I have checked 10 random sources as follows:
  • "Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality City Theaters Official web site"- subject not mentioned
  • Jump up^ "Istanbul City Theatres celebrate 100th anniversary"- subject not mentioned
  • "5th International Cyprus Theater Festival" - subject not mentioned
  • Turkishdrama.com subject not mentioned and was sourced from Wikipedia and IMBD both of which are not reliable for sourcing per WP:RS/IMDB and WP:USERG
  • "Intekam Drama On Geo Kahani" - TV type listing- pretty much a press release- not useful for notability, Not "Independent" per WP:GNG and WP:QS)
  • "Vasfi Rıza Zobu Theater Awards, "Actor of the year -notes subject won best actor award given by a youth foundation to reward a young theater artist who makes a difference with the performance he has shown in the city / municipality / private theater in the past year.
  • "Theater reviewer, Gülşen Bilge Kaya's article, "Psychologists suggest betrayal! - Review of a Harold Pinter's play"Deception". Trival mention in Turkish "Art" website, arsizsanat.com. Subject is mentioned twice in Turkish article. Strangely, if translated to English by Google it appears that he is mentioned 11 times, the exact same sentence repeated 10 time.
  • "Koliba Film" - Link returns "Web Sitesi Yapım Aşamasında" (under construction) -useless
  • "International İstanbul Theater Festival" - Annoucment of performance times of play at Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality City Theaters. Not useful to establish notability. subject not mentioned
  • "Nov. 2016 87th issue of Yeni Tiyatro Dergisi (New Theater Magazine) has been released! - PR announcement for magazine and list places one can buy it. once again, subject not mentioned
That's all I am willing to check particularly because over half of the "sources" don't even mention the subject. Since the creator has spent a lot of time on this article as well as this AFD I am willing to amend my vote if any of the keep votes can provide 3 sources that meet the requirements of WP:BASIC and WP:GNG -
"Significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." CBS527Talk 20:37, 8 April 2017 (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/Burak_Davutoğlu&oldid=1137660489"