Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cem Bayoğlu

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. Tone 19:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cem Bayoğlu

[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)

I was going to go through and remove all the unsourced fluff but that would leave the article with a single sentence and no claim to notability since it's all sourced to unreliable PR spam and black hat SEO sites. So tl;dr paid for pr spam. Praxidicae (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete have a look at source #2, Gazette Vatan, which is indicative of the rest. One need not speak the language to understand the breadcrumb above the article headline: "Haberler » Advertorial Haberleri » CEM BAYOĞLU KİMDİR?", i.e. paid advertorial. examining the other sources, I suspect a large percentage of them are of the fake/paid variety.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding that this photographer is notable. The sourcing is thin and does not constitute significant coverage. Netherzone (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Praxidicae, John Pack Lambert and Netherzone... I created this page because I thought that artist had important works and was previously approved in another language on Wikipedia. I regret to read the comments about the article in question being advertisements. ThatMontrealIP Did you really check this artist, his works and what independent editors wrote about him? Sometime newspapers publish artist bios to increase their web site hits so, it doesn't mean that references are paid ad or whatever else. The person in question is an artist who photographs famous artists and his works are exhibited in many countries. Don't you think that people who produce permanent art works do deserve to be here instead of popular culture's celebrities who have took a role in a few TV series or movies and then suddenly disappeared? I hope you review this issue and your decision again because I really made an effort to write this article well. Respect & regards. Cerrenfly (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cerrenfly: republished artist bios and press releases do not count towards establishing notability, which is the measure we use to see if an article should be on Wikipedia. I did look very carefully at the sources. Not notable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: I don't agree with you but ok.

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.