Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilar Dirik

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 per G7 and BLPREQUESTDELETE. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dilar Dirik

[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)

Article appears to have been written by an enthusiastic new editor about a non-notable but interesting person. They are an early-career academic and writer but do not seem to yet meet notability requirements.Boredintheevening (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I flagged this at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Dilar_Dirik - may be best to blank it for safety until it can be properly reviewed. Current version as I write this is [1] - David Gerard (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as an article on a marginally-notable figure whose subject has requested deletion. (Have blanked the article given subject's and David Gerard's comments.) Vaticidalprophet 09:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, this AfD was formatted improperly, so I've fixed the formatting as a procedural matter. Vaticidalprophet 09:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedily. Looks far WP:TOOSOON for academic notability, and still premature for notability as an author. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added "possibly speedy", per the case for speedy by Hoary below. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Russ Woodroofe (immediately above). Aside from the (important) matter of notability, virtually all the material in the article was added by a single editor, who has said (on my talk page, as it happens) that "i am trying to figure out how i can put it in the elimination process". I suggest that we interpret this as the equivalent of encountering "{{Db-g7}}" pasted on the article, and therefore that we speedily delete the article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged it for G7. My rationale is that if I had seen the message on Hoary’s talk page before the AfD was open, I would have tagged without further investigation. As nobody objects to deletion, I believe G7 is still proper despite the AfD being open.

If anyone objects to deletion, feel free to remove the G7 tag, and please ping me so I can evaluate the sources (which I have not done, as it is not required to make a G7 tagging on behalf of someone else). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly WP:TOOSOON even ignoring the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE question. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did the article, i am not that new in wikipedia, just in english wikipedia. The person really asked to not be in wikipedia, a section of the article that she considered harmful was cut, and after talking with her we came to set things right, where she gently asked for the elimination. JoaquimCebuano (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.