Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Yanaz

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Yanaz[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)

There is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources beyond mere mentions of the kind "Hair: Mustafa Yanaz" in some cases, that is really all there is. Getting credited as a hair stylist in a photo shoot does not establish notability. The lead is a particularly egregious example: "Hair: Mustafa Yanaz at Art & Commerce" becomes: " is a New York-based hairstylist known for creating complex and conceptual hair styles". Vexations (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not trying to come off as hostile but I'm just thinking about the words "Getting credited as a hair stylist in a photo shoot does not establish notability" So models can receive all the recognition but the one who is behind the scenes isn't allowed to have notability because "Hairstylist in a photo shoot" = a nobody. A lot of these references involve pictures. If you looks closely at the pictures you can see why the vocab used in the article is accurate. "A picture is worth a thousands words" isn't it? Credit from the new york times, WSJ, Vogue(which just a small credit is what every hairstylist dreams of) Vice, Dazed, Elle and more are not enough notability? If vogue, WSJ, New York times thought he was notable enough to give credit to why should Wikipedia say he isn't notable they don't put credit to people doing hair for prom or regular weddingsDidsomeonesaybacon (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didsomeonesaybacon, I'd say this isn't about hairdressers per se, it applies to all involved in a photo shoot; the model, the photographer, the stylist, the entire crew. If there is only a credit, that is not significant coverage, which is what establishes notability. Vexations (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked UPE spammer. MER-C 16:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - confirmed undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 16:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:MILL, WP:SPAM, and WP:OUTCOMES. A person who serves the rich and famous does not automatically become notable, short of serving a head of state. This is a run of the mill hairdresser/hair artist. One of my former students at Bryant and Stratton College used to do the hair dos for the rich and famous jet set in Saratoga Springs, New York; I would not create an article here for her. While we might have let this slide in 2008, everybody knows in Wikipedia that you don't use Wikipedia, a charity, to publicize yourself and your for-profit business. We have consistently deleted articles about producers, makeup artists, and similar behind-the-scenes persons in the modelling and movie businesses, unless they clearly meet WP:CREATIVE, which is far from the case in this instance. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It is obvious that this page is advertisement. The tone feels different. Almost no independent/reliable sources. I don't think this guy is notable by any means. ~Styyx ^{wat is yuo want?} 11:03, 23 July 2020 (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.