Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alhan Gençay


 * 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. Ignoring the SPAs and possible (meat/sock)puppets. Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Alhan Gençay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG and WP:NACTOR. This page has been speedily deleted three times: March 2015, January 2018, February 2018. A PROD was contested, but I believe still fails GNG. The references mention the subject, but do not create adequate notability for the subject: they're references to projects he has worked on or fail as independent (a tweet, a Facebook page, links to the projects themselves). In fairness, the strongest source is likely this one but it's again focused on the project rather than the subject himself. I don't see a way to get to "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" or "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It’s hard to pin down exactly what he does, but it seems to be a mix of journalism, comedy and acting. I thought that the most sensible thing for me to do before moving this article into the mainspace would’ve been to compare him to other VICE Hosts (something that he’s most notable for). To be completely honest, comparing this article to those, this ones comes out on top. It’s very comprehensive and fleshed out.
 * Delete. A journalist is not notable because they've published articles in reliable sources, or been quoted in reliable sources, unless there is significant coverage of them as a subject in multiple reliable sources. Qwfp (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, without question. 2015 is long ago so not sure what the situation was with that speedy deletion. As for the ones in 2018, I can only imagine it was for a lack of references & citations.  I’d only imagine this was the case beacause all the references that are in the current-day article have been written after the dates of those speedy deletions.  As it stands currently, I believe there to be a respectable amount of references.

I’d recommend you go over the strongest source that you mentioned. While I do agree that it’s about the project, I would stress that it’s his film that they’re writing about. He fronts it as an on-screen correspondent. The source is an article of an Evening Standard interview with him; he gave the journalist exclusive information about the documentary which without interviewing him wouldn’t have been possible to write. He’s quoted several times and the first photo in the article is a photo of him. It’s an interview and he is most certainly a main focus of it. To say it’s solely focused on the project and not the subject himself isn’t wholly true, I believe.

Moreover, I’m not sure how you’ve reached the decision that he’s "failed GNG & WP:NACTOR".

Upon reviewing his IMDb page, there does seem to be significant roles in multiple notable films and certainly television shows, including EastEnders, The Legend of Dick and Dom and Nuzzle and Scratch.

Another one of the criteria listed on WP:NACTOR is for individuals to have “a large fan base or a significant “cult” following”. His Twitter and Instagram following, along with the views acquired on his series, does show this to be the case.

I do honestly believe you were rushed to nominate this article for deletion because of the fact that it was thrice speedily deleted, which is completely understandable. But after carefully checking sources and references I think this is a solid article. I wouldn’t have moved it into the mainspace otherwise :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennaAlford (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Totally agree with the above. I believe that with my further updates this is a strong article. comment added by P archibald (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - the two "keep" comments above are from the creators of the article. P archibald created this instance of the article.  JennaAlford created a version that was speedily deleted in 2018 and moved this incarnation from draftspace into mainspace.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - creators of the article are allowed to vote themselves. Not sure why that was mentioned. Would've been more productive if you responded to their comments, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord77Street (talk • contribs) 15:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - and the previous unsigned comment was left by a new user with zero other contributions. All three of "P archibald", "Lord77Street" and "JennaAlford" have had issues with their signatures. Quack?49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.