Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metin Kaya

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metin Kaya[edit]

Metin Kaya (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)

BLP-Prod removed by author for BLP article with low quality sources. Of the three sources, one is a single line, One is the front page of the court, the third mentions him as a candidate of some kind. With valid sources could be a good article, but at the moment fails WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I removed the WP:BLPPROD tag, and I am not the author, because this very obviously didn't qualify for that process as it had sources. And what better source could there be for the subject passing WP:POLITICIAN as a supreme court judge than the court itself? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of reliable source coverage in media, not by having primary source profiles on the website of their own employer. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of WP:POLITICIAN it has always been accepted that the web site of the "employer" (which is not always a legally accurate description of the relationship to the body of which the subject is a member), such as that of a parliament or a government or a court, is sufficient. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Solely for the purposes of very basic verification of whether or not they've actually held the claimed office. Not in the sense of conferring any exemption from having to reliably source the article's content. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but flag for {{refimprove}}. Sourcing definitely needs improvement, but the base notability claim is a legitimate one and better sources are out there. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about these other 78 of these article created in the last week or two. Here is one: Kerem Al and this one Nihad Matkap and this Ahmet Tan, Erdoğan Yazıcı, Birol Kızıltan and Márta Lacza. It is 80 articles now. They all may be notable, and they probably are notable, what what you have an editor which is busily creating a series BLP articles, sometimes a dozen a day, with mostly no references, and there seems to be no mechanism to block address it. BLP-prod tag are just removed. scope_creep (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is about this article, which is about a subject that obviously passes WP:POLITICIAN and which obviously had sources. If we are talking about block addressing anything then we should block address an editor who continually puts WP:BLPPROD tags on articles that have sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No it's not. We are talking about the whole list. I'm really trying to be kind and get you to realize and understand that proper verifiable references are critically important. I could easily have block Afd'd the whole contents of the list, all the ones which have broken or incomplete or missing refs. However, it would have taken considerable time which I don't have coming this close to Christmas and I think it would have been a complete waste of good content. scope_creep (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A couple of other people may want to comment. scope_creep (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "no it's not" are you really trying to say that this discussion is not about Metin Kaya? If so then you need to withdraw the nomination because the way that you created it says that it is about Metin Kaya, and him alone. And please cut the patronising language about "really trying to be kind". This article has, and had before you started trying to get it deleted, a proper verifiable reference saying that Kaya was a supreme court judge in a country more populous than France, the UK or Italy, easily passing WP:POLITICIAN. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ya i agree with scope creep. I thought Wikipedia was against unnamed servers, because I noticed you don't even have a user name. Please get an identity. Thank you! Rebekahalnablack —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions are supposed to be evaluated on the strengths of the arguments given, not on ad hominem reasons such as identity. But I suppose I must congratulate you on spotting such a difficult fact to discern as that I edit without a user name. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Metin_Kaya&oldid=1070997051"