Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deniz Efe Açıkgöz


 * 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   redirect to IMDb .  MBisanz  talk 04:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Deniz Efe Açıkgöz

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable individual who became "famous" in Turkey after writing a hoax on IMDb about him playing a character in Lost. The article asserts notability per this reliable source from the Turkish newspaper Milliyet, so it can't be speedied. Delete this bio per WP:ONEEVENT. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Let us not feed the monster. Being notable because you're notable seems to be the argument for this....but alas he hasn't gotten there yet. 7triton7 (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - Merge, but I wont be the one who merges. I dont care, I wrote it because he managed something interesting and notable. I dont know the kid, delete if you want to. This discussion is as stupid as the article itself. You are talking about deleting a 2 paragraph page. Yea, continue, save the world.--hnnvansier (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - few reliable sources give any decent contextual coverage to this issue. There are also some major tone problems with the article, suggesting a conflict of interest issue as a possiblity. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 09:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - Since it was for one event this could be at least a sentence or two in the IMDb article, again per WP:ONEEVENT which says cover the event not the person. Since the hoax was the event and it was done by the one person, I would think it would end up in IMDb's article instead of having its own article since people don't think it should stay.  I Grave Rob  «talk» 10:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merge to IMDb is not a good option here because it wouldn't fit into the article, and the event is not notable enough within the context of the history of imbd to merit a mention.  Also not notable enough for its own article; there is some fleeting media coverage,, but not evidence of encyclopedic notability.  Per BLP1E the article would have to be re-named to focus on the event if it were kept.  I have some qualms about systemic bias, but not enough to change my position.  Baileypalblue (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Go to IMDB link and see it yourself.. Geez... What are you talking about.. Systemic bias? Qualms? Notability??? It is just a stupid kid and 2 paragraphs. Dont you guys have better things to do instead of wasting your time with those kind of useless things? I cannot believe you are talking about nomination of deletion on worthless topics.. What a waste of time. Get a life.--hnnvansier (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2009 (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.