Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egrikapili Mehmed Rasim Efendi


 * 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   keep. No one, except the nomination, advocates deletion of the article. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Egrikapili Mehmed Rasim Efendi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG or WP:Notability (people). Gsingh (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep:There are dozens 5 sources on GBS and thousands on GS about him.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are only 5, and none are in English. Gsingh (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, five sources on GBS and thousands on GS. Lack of sources on English does not mean the topic is not notable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Half of the links on Google Scholar lead to forum posts and self made pages, check the first page. Someone should at least know if they are reliable or not. Gsingh (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I improved the article do you still want to delete it?DragonTiger23 (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Ottoman calligraphy has a high reputation, but because Ottoman Turkish is effectively a dead written language understood by relatively few people, reliable sources on Ottoman calligraphers are always likely to be tricky to find. As it is, the Grove encyclopedia entry that DragonTiger23 has now found is, I think, enough to establish notability. And while the other source in English that DragonTiger23 has now added is rather weaker (effectively a museum catalogue published by the museum itself, though as the author is apparently a recognised academic expert on Ottoman calligraphy, I'm provisionally inclined to regard it as reliable), the Grove article quotes several more sources (though I have not been able to check them). The article is still rather weak, but with enough potential to keep. (By the way, some advice for DragonTiger23 - if you are going to create articles on relatively obscure topics like Ottoman calligraphy, please do try to provide something more than an unreferenced short stub. Otherwise, as has happened this time, you will regularly find them in danger of deletion.) PWilkinson (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2012 (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.