Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Şerif Erol

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. Important to note is that the Turkish Wikipedia may have notability requirements (if any) that are different from those of the English Wikipedia. Kurykh (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Şerif Erol[edit]

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

This article on a judge only has two sources, which contain his name in promotions lists. A BEFORE search turns-up no English-language sources; identifying Turkish language sources is more problematic as this is a common name. Suggest delete per BLP. DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a senior enough judge for an article. However many judges it has, it is the highest court of appeal in the land. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Submit as AfD on Turkish Wikipedia instead -- Otherwise I am on the fence: Good arguments for and against keeping. It does appear he was on the high court, but I agree the sourcing looks pretty weak, and trying to look up the Turkish sources is a lot of work. I looked at the Turkish Wikipedia Entry and it is about the same. I wonder if it would be better to try and submit the AfD on the Turkish site so those who can read the sources in Turkish and know more about law in Turkey can make a decision? I think that is the way to go. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adem20: Given that you created this article, could you please find some more reliable sources (RS) and list it in the order of importance? I agree with others that the current WP:RS is weak, but if the subject was on the highest court, I would think there should be more coverage and probably state websites that show his participation. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2017 (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.