Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nilüfer Demir

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 no consensus. Perhaps this can be revisited after some months when the notability of the photographer can be better assessed, e.g. in light of any continuing coverage or award wins.  Sandstein  09:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nilüfer Demir[edit]

Nilüfer Demir (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)

BLP1E - unremarkable individual outside one event -- Callinus (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, which I suppose is obvious because I created the article. Jane (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are waiting for more data from her. Please wait with deletion. -Violetova (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. Quis separabit? 12:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, too obscure. Kierzek (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't seem to be notable enough for an independent article at this time. I wouldn't object to merging to Alan Kurdi, but there's barely any content to merge. Robofish (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:ARTIST: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Please note that I added two more sources highlighting her bio, and she likely also passes WP:N. I am not sure we need three articles: about her, about the child, and about the photo, but if only one of these three should be kept I guess this should be the article about the photographer.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree that she is an artist by our definition, and I added the Women artists tag to the talk page, but this was removed. Thanks for those other comments (I was am not familiar with those policies). Jane (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So please name the "subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" where her picture is the main subject. Burst of unj (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of course the professional photographer of the iconic picture should have an own article. E.Doornbusch (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's the name of that picture? Is there any reference that the photo is referred to as Flavor of the Month? No insensitivity intended. Burst of unj (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Work has been featured and analyzed by everyone from the BBC to the Canadian candidates to The Weather Network to the Islamic State. This is far from just Facebook viral. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Her work has not been critiqued as a work of art. She is not a "subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" where her picture is the main subject. Burst of unj (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That BBC news report is not an art review by a medium dedicated to art. Try again! Burst of unj (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'd like that, wouldn't you? This "medium dedicated to art" criteria is something you pulled out of your ass. The BBC is one of multiple independent reviews, and that's all it needs to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She does not meet wikipedia criteria for "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Please save your "ass" talk for someone else. Burst of unj (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I heard you the first seven times. If you're now resting everything on a narrow definition of "periodical" and assuming that definition also applies to "or reviews", there's still the 4b and 4c criteria. I'll wager you want to say exhibitions need to be in museums, and critical attention has to come from professional art critics. If so, don't bother making that up, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She does not meet the criteria for multiple reviews in periodicals or multiple articles in periodicals or (possibly) one of each. I am not the one defining what a periodical is, but if you want BBC included - you might have a long road ahead. Burst of unj (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've heard you the first eight times. I think this long familiar road might actually be us walking in circles. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The familiar road might be called "Trying to shoo in a press photographer without required merits". But she does get an "A" for her effort in photographing a drowning victim facedown in the surf with body on land, after the body was dragged on land. Burst of unj (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hell do you keep saying it like that? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because I am pointing out inconsistencies and facts. Burst of unj (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would basically be opposed to demeaning the accomplishment. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article subject passes passes WP:ARTIST. Professional photographer of an absolutely iconic photo. Also end the Merge discussion at the talk page. We can not have a AfD and a Merge discussion going on at the same time.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Her work has not been critiqued as a work of art. She is not a "subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" where her picture is the main subject. She does not pass WP:CREATIVE (or WP:ARTIST). Burst of unj (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Photographs of Alan Kurdi. I would find it odd if the article about the photographs gets deleted, and the article about her gets kept; that would mean that her photos are not notable, but that she is! Burst of unj (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article about her photographs has later been deleted. Her photos are not notable on this website as a separate subject - and now one suggests that this website has a need for a seperate article about her! When the bathwater goes out, so does the photographer floating in the bathwater! Burst of unj (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into wherever the information at Photographs of Alan Kurdi winds up (which itself is likely merging with Alan Kurdi) and then redirect there. Fails WP:BLP1E for a standalone article, but the information is worth noting somewhere. ~ RobTalk 21:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She's not notable for any events, she's notable for creating a (more or less) permanent object. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What object might that be? Burst of unj (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A photo gallery. Your account is extremely familiar with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That object - or image file - is as much a permanent object as a song recorded (as an audio file in bits and bytes, even in cyberspace. I am assuming that you are referring to a series of (at least 3 pictures), rather than a photo gallery. Time will tell if she is notable for any "events". If she doesn't get something close to a Pulitzer Prize, it will be because of "events" - not for the lack of events. --Burst of unj (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're a tough one to understand. But yeah, "series" and "gallery" are interchangeable, in my books. This is the future, after all. They don't need to actually hang in a building to be notable works. Only if they want to have notable galas. The object here is simply the image, whether via computer file, slideshow projection, posterized T-shirt or whatever derivative work. Artists aren't judged on what they do to produce things, but on what things they produce do. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She still does not pass the criteri for being the "subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" where her picture is the main subject. Burst of unj (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)"[reply]
You're still confused. The art needs to be the subject, not the artist. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The press photograph - or art (according to some here) - has not been the "subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". She does not meet wikipedia criteria. Burst of unj (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Alan Kurdi (which should probably be moved to Death of Alan Kurdi). Her photographs are iconic. Miniapolis 00:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Even if there isn't an enormous amount of information now that isn't critical. Just taking those photos makes her notable. There is an article on Nick Ut who took the photo of Phan Thi Kim Phuc fleeing from her napalmed village, and Eddie Adams who took the famous execution photo of Nguyễn Văn Lém. And as a young photojournalist she will have a further career which can be updated in due course.-Josephus37 (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She never won a Pulitzer Prize, in contrast to the two Pulitzer Winners that you mentioned. Burst of unj (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.-Josephus37 (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion continues beneath the box below. Thank you. Burst of unj (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without stopping the discussion above, the following discussion has been inserted here - moved from Talk:Photographs of Alan Kurdi.

The proposal is to merge the article on the photographer, Nilüfer Demir, to here (Photographs of Alan Kurdi). Rationale: Nilüfer Demir has only become known through these photographs, and we have no reliable sources other than in relation to the photographs. (See also this proposal to merge the article Alan Kurdi to here.)  --Lambiam 10:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge - World leaders refer to her photographs of the lifeless boy, but hardly to her if at all. She is not a witness in any formal police investigation as to how a boy gets picked lifeless out of the water and treated tenderly, and therefter is found face down in the water when it is time for photographs. Burst of unj (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Not Merge. Nilüfer Demir is definitely an extraordinary person, a 29 year old woman, professional photographer. She stands by herself. How many persons would have been capable to take such photos ? I can also see that she has now an article in 4 other WPs. From which criteria should one say that she does not deserve a bio like the 2000+ American photographers present on WP ? Are we sure that she is less reknown or talented or important or courageous than these 2000+ photographers ? Jatayou (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    Being extraordinary or not is not the issue. We don't include articles about people because they "deserve" it as being extraordinary and exceptionally courageous and talented. The sole criterion is notability, and that is what is at issue here. See also these additional criteria for (among others) photographers, and WP:1EVENT.  --Lambiam 21:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    I try to reword who is Nilüfer : worthy of notice, remarkable, significant, interesting, and unusual enough to deserve attention and to be recorded. All this being words that you can find on the notability WP page. Please also refer to the comment of Mardus below which I totally support. Jatayou (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
    Regardless of what it says in the lead of the guideline, I maintain that the subject meets neither the basic criteria for notability nor the additional criteria set forth in the guideline. We simply do not have sufficient material from reliable sources to write a decent article on the subject. If you leave out the sentences on the photographs, all that is left is, "Nilüfer Demir (born 1986) is a Turkish photographer based in Bodrum, Turkey."  --Lambiam 21:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge. Nilüfer Demir is a separate topic from Photographs, just as Nick Ut is. -Mardus (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Only one of those two has won a Pulitzer Prize - and it's not Nilüfer Demir. At this point in time, her merits have not reached his level. She is only known for one thing, but I am inclined to think that if she does nothing else, this one thing is generally viewed as more than fifteen minutes of fame. Burst of unj (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge any relevant, delete rest. Notable for one set of photographs not worthy of own article. Worth commenting here on the context of the photographer who took the photos. SPACKlick — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs)
  • Do not merge. - clearly notable photographer. and secondly we can not have both a merge discussion and an AfD going at the same time. keep per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
BabbaQ's vote from the imported discussion, needs to be ignored by the Stats-calculator. Therefore I have changed his/her "not merge" to "not merg-e". Burst of unj (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is this discussion closed now? I am asking because there is a "big box" in the discussion, and no one has added anything, so therefore it looks like a "close". Burst of unj (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is open. The move discussion is on hold pending the AfD outcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand the BLP1E argument, which is very enticing given the current lack of information about this person, but I am swayed by BabbaQ's powerful one-liner. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She seems to fail WP:CREATIVE (or WP:ARTIST) because she is not a "subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Absolutely not notable - I am not swayed to say differently about her, after reading the criteria for notability. Burst of unj (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to 2015 Bodrum fatal boating accident or Migration to the EU article. She has not won any significant awards yet for her photo of lifeless boy lying facedown in the surf with body on land, after having been dragged on land by a hotel employee. Burst of unj (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However she does not meet this website's criteria for notability for creative professionals yet. A stand alone article about her 3 (or more) photos would be a good place to mention her. But that can wait until after she has been on Oprah's TV show with her poetic desciptions of her thoughts when she photoed Kurdi back with his face in the water, after he had been dragged out of the water and onto the beach. Burst of unj (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's long past time that you stop attacking people here, with your bad faith disruption of Wikipedia policy in order to prove a point against others. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out facts and inconsistencies. Burst of unj (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are behaviorally deliberately disruptively so as to attack other editors and otherwise be unhelpful. Should you continue this behavior, you will find yourself having admins throw the book at you. Wikipedia is not 4chan. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out facts and inconsistencies. That some see things differently is where the situation stands. Burst of unj (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I please suggest that you stop uncivil behavior, in order to avoid an imminent block. There are enough examples on this page. Additionally, even if you are an obvious singe-purpose account, it is sufficient to state your point once or twice, and not replicate it dozens of times all over the place. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments to PROP that press photographer into notability are flawed. But go ahead, keep up the ad homs: "uncivil behaviour", "imminent block". Burst of unj (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal attacks need to end. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What personal attacks? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to tell what he's implying or against whom with this facedown/eyes/after talk (here and elsewhere), but it doesn't quite sound not slanderous. As far as I can decipher, whatever it is is probably aimed at someone on that beach, rather than at a Wikipedian. Certainly disrupting Wikipedians, but in a passive cow on the highway sense, not like a tiger on the prowl. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At Photographs of Alan Kurdi there is no mention of "subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" either. She is a press photographer with photos which nobody has given any titles. Arguably her photos were not found worthy of having its own article on this website yet. Burst of unj (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as proposed. Naturally the photograph author should be mentioned on the photography article, but that hardly qualifies as a merge. - Nabla (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I understand the other arguments, which are very enticing given the current lack of information about this person, but I am swayed by Nabla's powerful one-liner. Burst of unj (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, please!... Do yourself, and us, a favour (or two): you do not need to comment on everyone, and you do not need to vote for the third time already (if I have not missed some). - Nabla (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one vote per person! However I have changed vote from "Merge" to "Delete", thanks to the first of your powerful one-liners in this discussion. Burst of unj (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the stats from the link on top of the page are inaccurate, because BabbaQ's vote is counted as a "Merge". (One way of solving the problem is to copy his vote above, and strike it out (or something), and then write below: "Keep" vote moved from above, due to a "conflict with an imported comment, in the 'discussion box' above that also was imported"). Burst of unj (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If we can ask that "hurry and close the discussion now, so the article can be kept on merit of the stats (to be viewed by closing admin in his/her decision or "decision".)! (7 votes for "keep" including BabbaQ's - 6 for delete. The stats in the stat link still have not been corrected.) The article can not be kept on account of lacking merits: She has not yet been reviewed by any periodical. On account of lacking merits WP:SNOW seems applicable. Burst of unj (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're absolutely hung up on the "periodical" point, do you dispute that she meets the basic criteria? If not, you agree that she may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The BASICS seem to be: Flavor of the Month, for press photographers recording drowned victim with eyes and face in the surf, after being dragged on land and having his eyes gently closed. Burst of unj (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Making one appearance in the news does not make one newsworthy; does not meet WP:GNG- a 'single item celebrity' Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This website can not take your word for that. As a press photographer there are no notable prizes that she has won. If she becomes an artist (or even a press photographer) "subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", then she will meet this website's criteria for notability. She is not there yet. Burst of unj (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:BASIC. If she meets that, she doesn't need to meet any additional criteria, even Criterion #2 of WP:ANYBIO. She can only be excluded on certain grounds, such as WP:BLP1E. That's a tricky argument, because a work of art is not an event, but it's far better than this defense. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "art", do you mean the photograph she took while she was on the clock for a Turkish Press Agency, not as a resident artist or traveling artist, but as a press photographer. Burst of unj (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Do you understand that I'm not talking about art here, but general notability? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you say that there is no art involved, I might be inclinded to concur. Burst of unj (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no "art involved"? Bus stop (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I might be swayed by a powerful one-liner, next time it comes my way. Burst of unj (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Swaying a single purpose account isn't worth anything, politically. I just wanted to know if you understood the policy. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing "Photography is an entirely valid means of visual expression". Burst of unj (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A deletion discussion is not a crude vote-counting affair where technically whomever 'side' happens to have the most individuals comment 'wins'. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the website. More more information, look at Wikipedia:Deletion process. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple in-depth sources easily passes WP:GNG. WP:ARTIST is irrelevant now as GNG is the priority guideline. freshacconci talk to me 17:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are lacking as far as the criteria are concerned; the criteria might not have been mentioned enough times already. Ask and you shall receive a repetition of (criteria). Burst of unj (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talk to me 18:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge to Alan Kurdi, per Ymblanter. Notable in her own right, passing GNG and ARTIST (barely). However, this event is significant, and she has a very important role in the event. -- Orduin Discuss 18:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is a "keep/merge" vote - one vote or two? How does she pass GNG? She has not been receiving significant mention by politicians as far as I can see. That might mean that she is not a significant part of the event. Burst of unj (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first, merge if not possible. Since when does being mentioned by a politician affect notability? -- Orduin Discuss 19:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Since when does being mentioned by a politician affect notability?" It doesn't. this is just the MO of a disruptive editor. See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Burst_of_unj if you're not familiar with him. freshacconci talk to me 19:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Also happens to be why I am here. -- Orduin Discuss 19:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She shot some photos, which are owned by her employer. This website has decided that her photos are not notable enough for the photos to have a separate article. Some photos she shot, have been referred to by a some prime ministers and world leaders, since 2 September. These world leaders are hardly mentioning her if at all, but they do refer to the agency's photos (shot by her). And they hardly if at all refer to the photos as art. I conclude that she is not an important part of "the event". Burst of unj (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this photographer was totally unknown until she was lucky enough to shoot the photo of Alan Kurdi which accidentally was massively picked by the media to create guilt into Westerners. Insignificant person otherwise. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, she was unknown and now she's known -- that's kind of how it works. Which guidelines address being lucky to achieve notability and creating guilt in Westerners? freshacconci talk to me 01:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would one distinguish between sheer "luck" on the one hand and determination, hard work, talent, and passion? I don't think we should be concerned whether "Westerners" experience guilt or not. The senseless death of a child is likely to provoke feelings of guilt or at least sorrow. We don't delete an article because an artist's photograph induces guilt or sorrow. (I think I am basically making the same point that Freshacconci has already made above.) Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:::*One distinguishes by seeing if she has been runner-up for national awards for press photographers' organisations. If she has not been mentioned in that way, it's likely (a) fluke. Wikipedia doesn't reward mere "determination, hard work, talent, and passion" plus pictures in newspapers and TV (when her name is hardly mentioned in those passings) with a wikipedia article. If one plays the "Its difficult for women to succeed in Turkey card", then one looks for awards from the most significant international organisations for (female?) press photographers. 46.15.33.165 (talk) 06:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • She seems to be so insignificant that the article about her does not explain that she is a journalist. She interviewed one of the policemen at the "dead body scene", in front of a professional cameraman from the same news team. She is a "working stiff" without any merits, working at a press agency. No merits as a journalist, but has shot a photo for her press agency which has been published widely. Press photos usually have the name of the photographer attached to the photo when publishing. That's not notable, that's normal. 46.15.33.165 (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Fairly obvious topicban evasion. Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask you—are you the same editor who edits as "Burst of unj"? Bus stop (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fucking LOL eh! That man is rumbled EPIC SOCK FAIL looool — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 2015-09-13 09:10:22‎
This must be driving him crazy, not being able to comment, and respond to every keep !vote. freshacconci talk to me 13:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Demir's work is already being compared with the most iconic photos of all time [1]. WWGB (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:ARTIST. Flat Out (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If by some chance the article was deleted, it would no doubt be re-created when Demir wins the prize/s she will no doubt win for this. It seems obvious it should be kept.-Josephus37 (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per arguments above by User:Ymblanter. -Mardus (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with so much coverage, article subject clearly meets both WP:ARTIST and the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:32, 15 September 2015 (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/Nilüfer_Demir&oldid=1136471008"