Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tevfik Arif

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. There is a clear consensus. The one and only reason given for keeping, that Google search results show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", is of little value, as merely stating that there are sources without saying what or where they are does provide verifiable evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tevfik Arif[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For wikipedia article, subject must have significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to show notability. The dated references of two 2014 articles on business rumours and a 2011 Guardian article that has since been debunked does not define significant coverage. Nor does past business association with Donald Trump define significant coverage or notability. Donald Trump has business associations with thousands of non-notable individuals. Singhaarav52 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note (Attn: @Checkingfax:@Sainsf:@Cullen328:) I've rewritten this entire article and added more sources. This articles subject is a former official of the Soviet Union who is now a billionaire and major company founder and who has partnered with Donald Trump on many building projects and was arrested in 2010 for running an international prostitution ring. As to WP guidelines and policies relating to the deletion of an article that could reflect badly on a presidential candidate during an election season, or provide a reasoning as to why Trump appears to not have major problems with Russia, I'd need more information about before deciding if this article should be kept or not. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Pinging editors who you have reason to believe may support your view actually in the deletion discussion is one of the most blatant ways of canvassing that I have ever seen. 80.168.175.26 (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Picomtn expressed no opinion here about whether or not the article should be deleted, so your accusation lacks merit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person fails WP:POLITICIAN as a vaguely described "former Soviet official" and the current references provide no information about his office. The information about prostitution related criminal charges that he was acquitted of violate our biographies of living people policy and also the guideline WP:PERP. The sources are sensationalistic and tabloid in nature, fail to provide significant coverage of the biographical details of his life, and this brief article in its current form seems to be a coatrack to advance the argument (which may well be true but does not belong here) that Donald Trump associates with sleazy people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cullen328: Thank you very much for your very insightful, and documented, reasoning about this article that, in essence, says everything one needs to know about it. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A more careful reading of the sources reveals that he was involved with "hotel management" for a Soviet ministry. Not a notable government job. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Even a cursory glance at the Google search results shows "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". WP:BEFORE applies here. Edwardx (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might be kind enough to provide links to what you see as the best of those sources, Edwardx? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have removed this text in the article according to the requirements of WP:BLP. MPS1992 (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all actually convincing for the needed solid independent notability, current article has nothing else keepable. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 13 May 2016 (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.