Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Kemal Ataküfr

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 speedy delete by Fastily per author request. plicit 12:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Kemal Ataküfr (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)

Unsourced, with no indication of notability per Wikipedia:Neologism. In a WP:BEFORE search, I can find "Ataküfr" only mentioned in passing in a single, non-notable blog, and in a non-notable student essay on academia.edu. Storchy (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did consider speedy, including A11, since it's only mentioned on a single blog online. If I'm being too cautious, then I've got no objection if someone wants to BOLDly nominate this for speedy delete. Storchy (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn’t violate wikipedia rules, you can find an exact similar wiki page of “North Atlantic Terrorist Organization”
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Terrorist_Organization Amr.elmowaled
  • atakufr nickname is used on social media among folks and i can bring up many posts and comments using it if asked, isn’t that enough to have an article about ?, is it a must to have the nickname mentioned in journals for example ? Amr.elmowaled
  • No, it must have significant use in WP:Reliable sources. If a newspaper wrote about people using it on social media, that would be a reliable source. But social media posts alone won't help us here. Storchy (talk)
  • the WP:Reliable sources you sent explains what qualify as information source about topics, not what qualify to having a wiki page about, as both of us already agreed that the nickname atakufr is widely used on social media among folks and many websites, the case here isn’t about reliable sources talking about atakufr in the first place, it’s about the existence of the term which both of us agree that it does and is already in useAmr.elmowaled — Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 16 November 2022 (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.