Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baris Ozgur


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Despite copious amounts of pseudolaw verbiage, the lone Keep view failed to adequately address the absence of independent, significant coverage. Consensus here is clear. Owen&times; &#9742;  12:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Baris Ozgur

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Delete: Non-notable. None of the cited sources contain significant coverage of the subject. Three of the sources (SonDakika, Cumhuriyet, and Dizidoktoru) are nearly identical reprints of the same press release. Regardless, they are out-of-scope, because they are synopses of the film "Geal" and merely mention Ozgur. WP:BEFORE yields nothing that contributes to notability. Scottyoak2 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film,  and Turkey. Scottyoak2 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: no notability. spam. Tehonk (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Reply to objections
 * Reference your opinion that:
 * "'Delete: Non-notable. None of the cited sources contain significant coverage of the subject. Three of the sources (SonDakika, Cumhuriyet, and Dizidoktoru) are nearly identical reprints of the same press release. Regardless, they are out-of-scope, because they are synopses of the film 'Geal' and merely mention Ozgur. WP:BEFORE yields nothing that contributes to notability.'"


 * I would like to reply in a step-by-step manner to each of the objection that has been raised.


 * Objection 1: Non-Notable
 * Reply to objection 1
 * 1. WP:N says:"'A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG)...'"


 * WP:BASIC says:"'People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.'"
 * What does WP:GNG says?
 * 1.1. WP:GNG says: "'A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'"
 * 1.1.1. WP:SIGCOV says: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
 * 1.1.2. WP:RS says: "'Reliable' means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.'"
 * 1.1.2.1. WP:SOURCEDEF says: "'A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage'"
 * WP:SOURCE says: What counts as a reliable source...
 * The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: "That source covers the arts.") and publications like them.
 * However, even if the source is recognized as blog, WP:NEWSBLOG says"'These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals'"
 * 1.1.2.2. WP:PUBLISHED says: "'Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form...'"
 * 1.1.3. WP:PSTS says: "'Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources...'"| External Reference for what is secondary source
 * Response: In terms of the above outlined criteria, the article has received WP:SIGCOV significant coverage as after visiting the secondary sources there is no need to carry out any further research. Thus significant coverage warrants that the article be retained as stand-alone article WP:GNG. WP:RS outlines reliability criteria and as per the available public information and assuming optimistically there has been no information of Journalistic misconduct on the part of media entites which have been referenced herein. However, if you have any specific information in this regard, please share.
 * Thus, having significant coverage by multiple reliable secondary sources the article qualifiesWP: BASIC. Hence, qualifying WP:GNG and WP: BASIC depicts the WP:N of the article and merits a stand-alone article.
 * Objection 2: None of the cited sources contain significant coverage of the subject.
 * Reply to objection 2
 * WP:SIGCOV says: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material ."
 * Response: There are multiple sources like for example | this webpage that has covered the topic under discussion in detail, and I am sure no more information is required after vsiting this secondary source.
 * Objection 3: Three of the sources (SonDakika, Cumhuriyet, and Dizidoktoru) are nearly identical reprints of the same press release.
 * Reply to objection 3
 * WP:GNG says: "'There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected '"
 * WP:NEWSORG says: "'Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy.'"
 * In addiiton; WP:RS says: "' Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.'"
 * Response: Thus just having three sources ( though there are now almost 10 verifiable and reliable secondary sources)  isnt a valid reason to declare Non notability. At the same time, it is a worldwide practice that newspapers copy news from reliable source and in this case reporting of similar news by different media sections strengthen this notion that the news being shared is accurate. Furthermore, availability of secondary sources second the WP:RS clause and shall be deemed as passing the test for notability criteria.
 * Objection 4: Regardless, they are out-of-scope, because they are synopses of the film "Geal" and merely mention Ozgur. WP:BEFORE yields nothing that contributes to notability
 * Reply to objection 4
 * WP:SIGCOV says: "'it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. '"
 * WP:GNG says: "'sources vary in quality and depth of coverage... '"
 * Response: As said, the subject doesn't need to be the main topic nor the depth of coverage determines the notability criteria.
 * Conclusion
 * I hope I was able to address the questions that have been raised here by the respectable members.
 *  My vote 
 * Keep
 * Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sibtehassanbutt, please keep any future comments brief. You don't need to post long quotes of policy. Just link to the page and editors who are interested can go check it out. Long walls of text like this can discourage other editors from commenting. Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Duly,noted. Thanks for the guidance. Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * COMMENT:@Tehonk Thanks for the input. Per WP:BROCHURE and the examples cited therein, can you quote any line from the article here that fits this description? Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Scottyoak2,
 * Hope you are doing well. The sources you talked about ofcourse they represent the same movie but how are they identical? These are completely different websites. They are not out of scope. They do mention that the film script was written by Baris Ozgur. Askarii27 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: He isn't the primary focus of most of the secondary independent sources. I was not able to find any other source that would make the subject notable. Aintabli (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: Thank you for the input. Per WP:SIGCOV, being primary focus/ main topic of the source is not necessary to establish significant coverage. However, as per your argument you are establishing that the subject is focus of most of the secondary independent sources though you don't agree with the primary part, but even as per this notion it qualifies WP:BASIC and establishes notability. Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I know that, but that kind of abstracts portions of my comment from the overall point I was making. I actually meant that there isn't any significant coverage within the sources. The sources are not exactly good quality and mostly quite brief. When you combine this with that he is not the primary focus, there isn't significant coverage. Aintabli (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: Please refer to WP:BASIC If in-depth coverage is not present, then multiple sources can be combined to establish notability.
 * Second, I can't see what the quality of sources refers to. Can you cite any guidelines within WP:GNG that discussed '''"Quality of the Source?"
 * Per WP:GNG the aspect of sources has been discussed under WP:RS i.e., reliability, and says sources encompass all sources of media, including published, and WP:PUBLISHED means any publicly available source, including webpages. Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * COMMENT: @Scottyoak2 Thanks for your detailed review. I think the subject under discussion is primarily a writer, producer, and director. These are the characteristics whose coverage makes the subject notable, and these particular aspects of the subject have been covered by sufficient reliable secondary sources. Referring to this
 * Archive_401#FilmFreewaycan't see any consensus about it. However, I am not claiming notability on the basis of this one reference alone. Per WP:ABOUTSELF only primary information is drawn from FilmFreeway reference, and the information, even if presumed self-published, is still admissible as a source as it pertains to the subject himself. Though keeping in view the coverage of the film Cold Blooded Love, I think WP:CREATIVE can be claimed, yet I think when its qualifying WP:BASIC, there is no need to demand WP:N for other additional criteria (s).
 * P.S.: I have added a few more references in the original article for your kind review, please. Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2024 (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.