Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private Sözlük

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 keep. Mango juice^talk 16:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private Sözlük

Just another website, fails notability, WP:WEB, no independent sources. Created again, it has to be assumed the earlier prod deletion is contested, so here we go. Delete as nominator. Femto 15:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear notable, and definitely fails WP:WEB. YechielMan 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Private Sözlük is notable in Turkey.Hebele 20:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hebele (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, per Hebele --164.107.223.217 21:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC) (indefblocked user) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD discussions need to be sustained by arguments, just saying "it's notable" doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines and will likely be discounted. If the site is as notable as claimed, it should be easy enough to provide proof with independent, non-trivial reliable sources in the article, preferably verifiable also by English-speaking editors. (By the way, what does the tag at tr:Private Sözlük mean? Was the topic tagged for deletion even at the Turkish wiki?) Femto 23:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? --164.107.223.217 00:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. Anonymous users are welcome to explain their positions, but nameless IP addresses simply supporting the reccomendation of another user have little to no weight in AfD discussions, for obvious reasons. Femto 12:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've got credible published turkish materials. these materials published by turkish news media, reliable newspapers and magazines.Hebele 06:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for instance:

http://www.radikal.com.tr/ek_haber.php?ek=cts&haberno=3075&tarih=14/02/2004&ek_tarihi=14/02/2004
http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?viewid=574527
http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2006/10/05/son/sonyas09.asp
http://turkuaz.zaman.com.tr/?bl=2&hn=5754
http://www.chip.com.tr/gununsitesi.asp?id=1354

Due to the language barrier I'm unable to evaluate the actual depth of coverage. (At least one link seems to be a newspaper reference, though the chip.com.tr link looks like a mere directory entry.) So I'll default to neutral but leaning to the side that Wikipedia doesn't need to cover every website in existence. Femto 12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have the same language barrier issue as Femto, but the references do appear to be discussing the site. We don't have many articles on Turkish websites, so I'll err on the side of caution with one that make an apparent claim of notability.--Kubigula (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2007 (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.