Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Sarimsakci

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. All but one person who participated in the discussion opposed deletion. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sarimsakci[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails notability guidelines. Article has had a notability tag since 2017 with no substantial edits since. Other than occasional local coverage mentioning him being involved in various low-profile real estate deals, he seems to only be notable for a real estate deal with the Trump Organization in Dallas that didn't go through (WP:1E). Slinkyo (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Turkey, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTWHOSWHO Aintabli (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This individual has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. These include a >1,500-word profile in Intelligencer, a >2,000-word profile in The Dallas Morning News, coverage within broader investigative reporting by The New York Times, another profile in the St. Louis Business Journal, and some coverage in The Mercury-News in the context of development in California. As always, the important part of 1E is the number 1, but we've got multiple events here. As such, he appears to pass WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC, and I see no alternative but to keep the article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's all coverage about bad business deals though, I'd argue that's still 1E, being bad at something over and over. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reject the notion that all of these separate instances of coverage can be plausibly considered as a single event. They are clearly different events happening in different states and in different years. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He's gotten coverage, but one bad business deal after another. [1], [2], [3], could argue we have GNG, but I'm not sure we have enough to build a non-neutral article. I don't think being bad at your job is what gets you an article, unless it rises to criminal notability, which this doesn't. Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The GNG imposes no talent or aptitude requirements. We have articles about William McGonagall, Stuart "Captain Calamity" Hill, Robert Coates (actor), and Tommy Wiseau. So whether Sarimsakci is good at his job or not is irrelevant, providing there is significant coverage of more than one event, which Red-tailed hawk has demonstrated. Jfire (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to add to that list, but I realise that if even just the obvious cases were listed (Eric the Eel anyone?) it would soon get very long. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Red-tailed hawk Tehonk (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep after seeing Red-tailed hawk's points. Aintabli (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2024 (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.