Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Admirer of Machiavelli


 * 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. Buck  ets  ofg 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

An Admirer of Machiavelli

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This play is not published, and only staged once, at a theatre of dubious significance, It is also part of a massive selfpromotion by Mehmet Murat İldan; se also Articles for deletion/Mehmet Murat İldan Orland 08:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because neither of the following plays by Ildan have been published nor staged:

I am also nominating the following related page because this book of poetry by Ildan has no given ISBN:


 * Merge anything useful (which may be almost precisely nothing) to the author's article. If the author's article ends up being deleted, then so be it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My comments above apply to all the plays listed (titles and first production dates would probably be enough - no need to spin out a plot summary or anything else). The book of poetry should ideally be given the same treatment assuming verifiability, which may have to be done by a Turkish-language search. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. Big Haz's solution sounds ideal. And by merge, I mean "give a list of plays". yandman  08:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete. I totally agree with BigHaz's opinion. If the article about the "writer" stays, merge while reducing swifly the amount of autopromotionnal info, otherwise delete. Clem23 09:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All - No attempt to establish WP:N House of Scandal 09:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as well as all articles by this vanity author. --Dalgspleh 09:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete all: self-promotion of a non-notable author. --Goochelaar 09:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All WP:N not met, and since even if there were primary sources for the plays (and I can't find any on Google) most of us won't be able to read them, thus we can't verify them either. I can't find any primary sources in English on Google either. From the comments in the AfD for the author I am convinced that there is certainly some intent of self-promotion.--inksT 09:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Some of those articles are quite long, it would not be possible to merge all of them. Merge the short ones, keep the longer ones. Baristarim 10:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The long articles consists of plot summaries that are unreasonably expanded (compared to for instance King Lear or Hamlet plot summaries). If we exclude the possibility that the writer is unfamiliar with wiki editing, these play synopses seem to fit in a style that an author would use to promote himself towards theatrical agents. --Orland 10:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering (I'm asking in the nicest possible way) if you might provide some argument or reasoning to justify your vote to keep?--inksT 10:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am modifying my vote to merge useful content - or delete if that is the concensus. On a closer look, there does seem to be serious notability issues - However the only thing that had ticked me off was that there were edit-wars about the speedy deletion templates for these articles yesterday, so I wasn't sure what to make of this AfD. I should have taken a closer look before I had voted the first time, sorry about that. Baristarim 11:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all, contingent on their author surviving AfD. "Self-promotion" is rather irrelevant to this discussion, and we don't typically go around deleting publications of "notable" figures.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty certain that even if the author himself scrapes through the notability test, he's not notable enough to make every single play of his worthy of an article. yandman  13:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with your strong disagreement. We do not have articles for many works of Friedrich Schiller, Molière, Carlo Goldoni which are among the foremost dramatists of their nations; we have stubs for several Nobel prize winners for literature, and we should have articles for every single unpublished play of a minor writer? I know that we judge each article for its own merits, but even so, I cannot see the merits neither of these plays, nor of having sometimes dragged-out plot outlines, with no hint at their notability... --Goochelaar 15:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest a compromise? Contingent on the author being deemed notable - which is far from certain anyway - we move all the plays into a list in his article (keeping the long summaries somewhere, userfied to someone's page would seem the best option). Then, when a Turcophone editor or two is able to verify any more details about the play, we can eventually spin it back out as a separate article. Essentially, we'd be doing the same thing as we do with songs on an album: As they get released as singles and generate press coverage, they become viable articles. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not really sensible. People searching for the plays don't want information on the guy who wrote them.  Meanwule, if we're missing articles on works by Schiller, Moliere, and Goldoni, we have a lot of work to do, don't we. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We have indeed. As for people searching for these plays, I do not foresee there will be that many. Anyway, this is the whole point of ascertaining notability. Who inclines towards the deletion believes not many people are going to look for these articles (and so miss them if they are deleted). On the other hand, if you know the title of a play, chance is, you also know its author and could get the idea of looking for his article... --Goochelaar 12:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all. I do not see the significance of individual books. The author page already has the list, which can be extended. OttomanReference 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to authors page. --MaNeMeBasat 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per above. Do not merge. Notability is insufficient. Wryspy 20:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete as well as all articles by this author. Prittglue 11:59, 29 January 2007 (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.