Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edip Yuksel/archive 1

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted as recreation of a deleted page --cesarb 03:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edip Yuksel
Tagged for sppedy but not reaching any of the criteria (though it does appear to be vanity). no vote. Dunc|&#9786; 00:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Speedy Recreation of page twice deleted. The first was userfied to User:Edip Yuksel.  I believe the second was speedied by JeremyA (deletion log).  --Xcali 00:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete recreation of deleted article, duplicate of User:Edip Yuksel --Henrygb 00:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: already deleted once &mdash; Bcat (talk | email) 01:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Extreme vanity, but still not a candidate for speedy delete according to the criteria. Denni &#9775; 01:35, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy."  WP:CSD Section 1.1.4.  --Xcali 01:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was bold and added a speedy notice to the article (keeping the existing VfD notice). If this is in violation of deletion policy, please revert my edit. &mdash; Bcat (talk | email) 01:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * From my experience, where there is a strong agreement among VfD voters that an article is appropriately speedily deleted, it is appropriate to put the speedy template on the page. I agree, by the way, speedy delete as a repost of previously deleted content. -- BD2412 talk 02:37, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * Strong Speedy for reasons above. This does get the Biggest Awful Picture award, though. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  02:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not sure what the criterion were for the first two deletions, were they both speedy? I don't think this should be a candidate for speedy deletion... it's not pure vanity... he does have books out, which doesn't mean notability... but it does mean it's not blatant "I'm a 10 year old from Alabama" vanity. I'd think about keeping this, and if it was speedily deleted the first two times then I'm not sure that should be used as a justification for this deletion. gren 02:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What are the criteria for author notability? Anyone know? - Mustafaa 03:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would like to know that as well -- and I would like the users voting here to base it on that, not because of past (speedy?) deletes. And, just because the user who created his own page isn't the easiest to deal with doesn't mean it gets speedy automatically. gren 03:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.


 * Undeletion -- This has been posted for undeletion by User:BrandonYusufToropov and seconded by myself. This is a strange case...I've yet to see the original VfD that led this to be labeled as reposted content. I'm beginning to think that this was originally speedied, and people are just jumping on the "reposted" bandwagon without examining the article. I agree it was originally a vanity page (the version now appearing at User:Edip Yuksel), but the current version (yes, apparently someone reposted it yet again...bad users) seems perfectly encyclopedic to me. I will concede it needs a lot of NPOVing, but Brandon attests to the individual's notability. As I have on VfU, I recommend undeletion.


 * Khizar- I too vote for UNDELETION. The article is now perfectly ok according to me as well as neutral. Also this is by no means reposted content. It doesnt resemble old content of yesterday.