Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Al Suleiman (journalist)


 * 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 and salt, per the request of several comments below. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Ali Al Suleiman (journalist)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article's correct title, Ali Al Suleiman, is currently SALTed, meaning this article was silently created under a different title in order to bypass the protection (it's also SALTed in several other language projects). The subject seems to lack notability, and the numbers of social media followers it boasts aren't mirrored by the engagement rates (the posts can barely scrap two-digit likes). The subject's Wikipedia attempts are thoroughly explained at fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Ali Suleiman.  ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у  ×°˜`°×  14:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * keep There are reliable sources that talk about this person, and we should not prevent writing the article under any name because of spam or other! Also, a Good editor with good edits,who wrote the article and has experience --I love Istanbul (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC) Struck vote of a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like this SPA might end up getting added to this list.  ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у  ×°˜`°×  15:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Question Would the subject of this article be the same as Articles for deletion/Ali Mahmoud Al Suleiman? TompaDompa (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * from the M.O. of the sockpuppets involved and judging by the tendency to use variants of the subject's name, it might as well be.  ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у  ×°˜`°×  15:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I suspected, it is the same person: the sockpuppets mentioned in the page TompaDompa brought up are also listed here. I don't know what's left to discuss at this point.  ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у  ×°˜`°×  15:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak Keep. This version of the article wasn’t created by a sock, and has more recent sources than the previous versions, but the most recent sources seem to be promotion for the subject and Turkish television in general. POLITANVM talk 15:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that all entertainment news coverage counts as promotional? What determines if something is promotional or not? The articles are months apart and have separate interviews with the subject in question. Silver  seren C 16:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that’s not quite what I mean. I’m not very familiar with Turkish media, but many of the English Wikipedia articles for the news sources cited in this article note that they have been accused of functioning as propaganda for the Turkish government. And since most of the citations here are about how great it is that Al Suleiman is helping export Turkish culture, then these might not be independent sources for this subject. I can see the case for notability given the number of sources over time, but looking at the sources again, I see some other issues that altogether don’t seem to be truly independent or reliable:
 * Shehab News Agency: There’s no author listed for the article
 * TRTWorld: No author listed. Concerns about independence noted at TRT World. Other sources note that Suleiman does translations for TRT, so this isn’t independent.
 * Isktiklal: No author listed.
 * The English Wikipedia article for Yeni Şafak doesn’t lend credibility to this source.
 * I’m not familiar with Draft:Diriliş Postası, so I’m not certain if it’s considered reliable. If it is, then this source seems to contribute to NBIO
 * Aksam seems okay for NBIO, but as an interview with very little author commentary, it’s mostly a primary source.
 * Anadolu Agency is state run, so it’s not independent on the topic of exporting Turkish culture.
 * Syria.tv doesn’t list an author
 * Daily Sabah is criticized as a propaganda outlet for the Turkish government, so it isn’t independent. The article has no listed author.
 * Orient News is repeating reporting from other sources, but I’m not familiar with them.
 * If Diriliş Postası and Akşam are considered reliable, independent and secondary, then I would change my vote to Week Keep. Even those two sources are written like press releases. POLITANVM talk 17:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Most non-English news sources don't include authors (as international news sources like the Associated Press often do not). That's not really an example of reliability or not of a source. And being state run is only an issue of concern if the information it was being used for was political and governmental in nature. I don't think the entertainment news section counts in that regard? Silver  seren C 18:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense for the non-author sources. For the state-run/affiliated sources, I might consider the them as a notability indicator if it’s a topic they’d have no interest in, but these articles are explicitly to promote this journalist and how he’s helping bring Turkish culture to the world. I’d be similarly skeptical about Voice of America writing effusive articles about an otherwise unknown American figure.
 * I’ll change my vote to Week Keep, since there are an abundance of sources that aren’t explicitly labeled as third-party contributions, but I am still skeptical that they are completely independent of Suleiman, given the promotional tone of every article about him and his long-term attempts to get a Wikipedia article.
 * And so it’s clear, it’s obvious you made this article in good faith and with no conflict of interest. This AfD is a great example of how bad faith editors, edit warring and sockpuppets get in the way of creating an encyclopedia. POLITANVM talk 18:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Deleted before at Articles for deletion/Ali Mahmoud Al Suleiman, and it's a cross-wiki self promotion (Deleted in a lot of wikis before since 2018 till now). This page created after a sock sent an email to Silver seren. I already sent an email to Silver before serval days, and clarified to him about this LTA, but I don't know why he created the page without any replay on my email! Best -- Alaa )..! 16:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I never replied to anyone's emails, including the sock puppetteers'. I made the article properly because I consider the subject notable with independent interviews and coverage months apart. Silver  seren C 16:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The conflict of interests here is extremely concerning, I must say...  ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у  ×°˜`°×  18:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And what exactly is the conflict of interest here? I don't have one and I made the article from scratch, so it has nothing to do with the sockpuppet accounts. Silver  seren C 18:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to throw accusations, but the way you created this article by changing the title in order to bypass an active protection from creation without any prior discussions is shady.  ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у  ×°˜`°×  19:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it’s helpful to question Silverseren’s intent at this AfD, when it’s perfectly believable that a long-term contributor to Wikipedia would take it upon themselves to create an encyclopedic version of an article that had previously been deleted repeatedly because of sockpuppetry. If the main issue before was CoI, sockpuppetry, and lack of demonstrated notability, these issues are solved a non-CoI editor creating a more NPOV article with sources believed in good-faith. A previous AfD where the reason was “created by blocked user” isn’t very relevant here.
 * I’m similarly skeptical about the independence of most of the sources given the long history with this article and the subject, but let’s discuss the sources, not the editors. POLITANVM talk 19:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I re-created the article because I consider the subject notable. I am not connected to the sockpuppetteer (and I consider them rather annoying in their constant account making and messaging to people), but regardless of their actions in the past that made the topic SALTed, I consider it an actual notable biographical subject that was unfortunately ruined by a POV-pushing sock user. Therefore I redid the article from scratch, looking up sources on my own and writing it completely from nothing. The sources spread out over a year of time are specifically about the subject and his translation activities. Here's some examples from the current article:


 * This coverage is entirely about the subject and includes separate quotes and other subject matter, showing they are independent interviews. I'm not sure how this couldn't meet WP:GNG requirements. People above are claiming promotion, when they are separate pieces of coverage months apart and I am certainly not promoting anything. Silver  seren C 16:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Silver seren, please see the sources analysis on trwiki. You'll found that all of sources you mentioned above (1+2+7+8), confirmed as "unreliable" by trwiki users. Best -- Alaa )..! 16:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen it. It's a pretty bad analysis, as it gives no evidence for its claims. It just says "isn't clear". Also, interviews are allowed for notability of a subject, especially if the article that includes the interview has biographical information on the subject. Kinda weird those aren't allowed on TrWiki. Silver  seren C 16:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your personal views on the notability of the subject, bypassing the salting was not the best move. For example, you could have created the article first as a draft and explained about the salting on the Talk page of the draft. Then, you could have asked other editors to address the notability issue. If other experienced editors agreed with you, you could then have asked permission from the salting administrator to move the draft to article space. By doing it your way, you have actually made the article less likely to be kept because of its history.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The administrator I was dealing with had no interest in draftifying it at all and refused to work with me whatsoever. My interactions with them were less than helpful. So I remade it from scratch (as a draft) on my own. And then moved it once I was done. Silver  seren C 16:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They didn't refuse to work with you; they just refused to do what you wanted. You were also told the same thing there about your sources that you were told here by --Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And the claim made about the sources in both instances don't stand up to scrutiny, as I noted above. The actual news articles were all dismissed on TrWiki as interviews, which is not an unreliable source indicator here (and it is perplexing that it is there). And, yes, the administrator refused to move a draft to userspace, making claims about banned users, despite the fact that it is directly in guideline that one is allowed to take over edits of banned users and support their inclusion oneself. Silver  seren C 17:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Delete this article about a persistent wiki-nuisance who is not only desperate to get coverage but has twice been blocked for sockpuppetry despite claiming to have made a “clean start”’. Mccapra (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What criterion would be used to be speedy delete the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * G4. Mccapra (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which deletion discussion?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

the one mentioned by the nominator in their original nomination post. I’m pretty sure the article was created under a second name variant too and has been deleted at AfD twice. Mccapra (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * here’s one Mccapra (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any AfD mentioned by the nominator in their nominating message. The one you mentioned is the only I'm aware of; it's been noted by others. It cannot be used for G4 as there was no community consensus. Before that could happen, the article was speedy deleted per G5 as it had been created by a sock. Although it wouldn't change the rule, I did take a look at the article at that time and compared it to the current article. There are many similarities, but there has been some updating by Silver seren. As for other AfDs, someone would have to dig them up; we can't assume they exist.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ok I thought the red text article title in the nomination was a previous AfD but apparently it wasn’t. An article was created with the exact same title as the current article on 12 June 2021 and then deleted. However it seems that wasn’t deleted at AfD as I’d mistakenly thought but under one of the speedy criteria. So the present article is the third version in one year but there isn’t a previous AfD consensus. Mccapra (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So nothing about notability or anything that AfD is actually meant to be about. I hope the closer completely disregards your vote here. Silver  seren C 18:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As pointed out in the AfD he mentioned, those articles smell like mere PR. The subject religiously keeps track of all the articles mentioning him, which leads me to believe that the coverage is just as inorganic as the social media followers numbers. It's impossible for me to assume good faith in this situation, sorry - it's gone on for too long.  ×°˜`°×  ηαη¢у  ×°˜`°×  19:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment when attempting to create this page, didn't it occur to you that Ali Al Suleiman is protected from creation? Why did you silently proceed anyway, bypassing the block with no prior discussion?  ×°˜`°×  ηαη¢у  ×°˜`°×  18:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All the previous discussions were about a sockpuppetter repeatedly recreating an article and using things like google links and other non-reliable sources to make a puffery filled article. I looked at the actual news sources available, considered it notable, and made a draft from scratch using only those news sources and only on direct biographical information. The only "puffery" I allowed to be included was the one line about social media numbers, since several of the sources mentioned that. Silver  seren C 18:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You do realize those social media numbers are most likely not organic, considering the abysmal engagement? Plus, those sources you used, have widely been exposed as unreliable by Turkish Wikipedia users.  ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у  ×°˜`°×  19:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not really our business on whether they're organic or not? And the sources were most definitely not. The list linked to before just had a bunch of statements that interviews weren't reliable and that they couldn't confirm on others. That didn't expose anything at all. Silver  seren C 19:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete So here we have a page that has a title that does not conform to MoS because an editor has chosen to bypass the protected (by me)correct title at Ali Al Suleiman. Normally I'd block an editor who did this, but I've been persuaded that the editor concerned isn't a sock and the disruptive behaviour probably doesn't quite merit a block. Nevertheless, I don't know why we are wasting time on this serial self-promoter and sock master. He's not notable, and shouldn't be rewarded with an article here Jimfbleak - talk to me?  08:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I must report that the subject has created yet another sockpuppet and has been desperately canvassing.  ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у  ×°˜`°×  09:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Confirmed, I was canvassed to this discussion by . I recuse myself of any further comment. Polyamorph (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeffed Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I wholeheartedly believe Silverseren re-created the article in good faith, considering how he found out about in the first place (I'm talk page stalker, sorry :d). However, the sources just seem not independent and/or significant to me. A relatively inexperienced me said this a year ago, and now I agree even more with it. ~Styyxie Talk? ^-^ 11:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So, multiple entire articles on the subject, written months apart, and with separate interview questions and answers aren't independent or significant? Can you elaborate on that? Silver  seren C 16:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be more than happy.
 * First of all, several months apart? All of them are from Summer 2020. This regular translator suddenly became the biggest talking point out of nowhere?
 * Interviews are just an echo of what a person says and therefore are considered primary sources/non-independent material.
 * Other Turkish sources (some not in the article) include the keyword "... kimdir" in their title, which means "Who is ..." General consensus is that these sources, regardless of the publisher, are unreliable and/or not independent. These are not written by the publisher themselves but are rather copied from somewhere else. A major website like Hürriyet takes its "Who is [random football refree]" text from the Turkish Wikipedia. This is just an example, texts may be taken from anywhere, including the person itself (In return for some $$$). Heaven knows where these come from. You can ask on the Turkish village pump if "Kimdir" sources contribute to notability, and everyone with slight AfD experience will say no. This is just how the lazy and greedy Turkish media works. Editors have to have this in their mind when using them.
 * I do not blame you for not knowing the things above, but I want this article deleted because the subject is not notable, not because of this stupid socking history. ~Styyxie Talk? ^-^ 18:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Except these sources aren't from July and don't use "Kimdir":
 * So where do these fit into all that? Thank you for informing me, by the way. I am basically done with this AfD, but I do want to know about this sort of thing for the future, if I encounter Turkish sources again. Silver  seren C 19:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So where do these fit into all that? Thank you for informing me, by the way. I am basically done with this AfD, but I do want to know about this sort of thing for the future, if I encounter Turkish sources again. Silver  seren C 19:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So where do these fit into all that? Thank you for informing me, by the way. I am basically done with this AfD, but I do want to know about this sort of thing for the future, if I encounter Turkish sources again. Silver  seren C 19:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So where do these fit into all that? Thank you for informing me, by the way. I am basically done with this AfD, but I do want to know about this sort of thing for the future, if I encounter Turkish sources again. Silver  seren C 19:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt along with the other salted targets. Long-term self-promoting pest, subject clearly doesn't meet WP:BIO; the few articles from news sources appear to be all from the same PR release. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And what PR release is that? Especially considering the articles are months apart and many are interviews with different questions and responses from the subject? You can't just claim it's all PR without actual evidence for that. Silver  seren C 16:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think I am willing to give up at this point, however. I still consider the subject notable and the coverage significant. But the socker has made this impossible to deal with. If he had just shut up the moment I made a statement on the original article talk page that I would clean it up and he had left, never made another account, and stopped bothering everyone, maybe this would be a better discussion. But, yeah, he ruined it. It just really annoys me though, because POV sockpuppetters like this make it incredibly difficult to write articles on actually notable people that they keep pushing. Since I don't think permanent SALTing is a good method at all, because it means that any future coverage showcasing notability even more strongly is that much more difficult to actually present. But, yeah, I give up. I wish he had shut up and gone away. Oh well. I wash my hands of this. Silver  seren C 17:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt Wikipedia, like life, is not perfect and even if the subject were notable (very dubious with some space-filling outlets repeating each other's content), it would be unhelpful to reward an LTA. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt It's a problem when all we have to go on is WP:INTERVIEWS. Even if they're in reliable publications, they're largely primary rather than secondary, so don't contribute to notability claims. Girth Summit  (blether)  06:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt obvious sockpuppet creation & not really notable as per the reasons stated above several times, and apparently it's just for advertisement; no need to point out that the sources are likely not reliable and all of them are interviews. Ahmetlii (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. The type of citations included in the article do not appear to meet WP:GNG. I will point out that "salting" does not prohibit article creation in the future, just means that there will be oversight if it is does created.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, per previous discussion and the French page. /Julle (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While I doubt it matters, noting here for the record that I was solicited by email (from an account with 0 edits) to come !vote keep. No clue why; I'm on WikiBreak and almost never !vote at AfD regardless. I've forwarded the email to a CheckUser. If other people get similar emails, might be worth putting notavote on this, but I'll leave that to the discretion of others. -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I too got an email for some reason. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The person who emailed me has now been blocked. If the one who emailed you hasn't, you should forward the email to an admin/CheckUser. -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment As mentioned by another editor I, too, was WP:CANVASSED here via email with the appeal to !vote "Keep". Chetsford (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2021 (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.