Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Sanat (2nd nomination)

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. postdlf (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Sanat[edit]

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

This page was nominated for deletion a few years ago and closed as no consensus. If this page were created today it would probably be deleted via CSD:A7 since there is not even a claim of notability in the article. It's been tagged for references since July of 2007. The first few pages of Google hits do not appear related to the magazine. Selket ^Talk 01:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not convinced its not notable, it makes a vague claim of notability already as having published prominent Turkish authors, which is a typical notability claim for a literary journal. I do see some Turkish language references to this publication. There are no doubt more prominent Turkish publications which don't have articles yet, but no convincing need to delete this one.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability." (WP:NRVE) There must be evidence of notability to keep, not lack of evidence of non-notability to delete. --Selket ^Talk 02:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. OK, I added two newspaper articles from 2005 to the article. The 2nd suggests rumors of a shutdown of the journal in 2005, which I am trying to verify. The periodical appears to be kept in many Turkish libraries based on searching the ISSN number, but the holdings seem to go through 2005 [1]. That would explain a lack of more recent sources, but its not hard to find them if you know where to look.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't operate a "delete unless" policy except with BLP-related articles. If in doubt, don't delete. --TS 16:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep inclined to agree with Milowent. Regrettably cannot find sources, or even the journal's own website, but systematic bias undoubtedly comes into play with Turkish Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for improvement by Turkish speakers. A search on this title at Turkish Wikipedia throws up a number of hits suggestive of publication in that now-defunct magazine. I suggest that the best move for the nominator now would be to contact active bilingual Turkish speakers on English Wikipedia, through Category:User tr or any Turkish WikiProjects, and ask if they are able to improve the article. If an honest attempt to do that fails I think we can delete with a clean conscience. --TS 16:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What a coincidence. Strangely enough, a copy of Wikipedia that fell through a wormhole from the future says in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Sanat (249th nomination) that "were the 2nd nomination to have taken place today, the nominator would have been blocked for a short time, for misrepresenting the nature of the article" Anarchangel (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2011 (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.