Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emin Boztepe


 * 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. the article is now sourced, so the reason for the nominaiton is moot. If there's another reason for deletion, this close should not prejudice a renom on those grounds. Scott Mac 23:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Emin Boztepe

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is an unreferenced BLP that has been tagged for improvement since Feb. 2008. The article gives no reliable sources to support any claim of notability. Proposed as part of WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 24th June 2010. Papaursa (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  —Papaursa (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosepicou (talk • contribs) 22:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article has been tagged for lack of reliable sources for two years and none have been added yet. Bobby122   Contact Me   (C)  00:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. But only with reference improvement.  Notable reference are out there.  He's been on the cover of Inside Kung Fu 4 times (along with other feature coverage), his challenge with the Gracies was covered in Black Belt Magazine, and he's been on several other notable martial arts magazine covers with feature stores as well as can clearly be seen here. I actually have several of those mags in a pile I just dug out of storage to get rid of, I'll use it to improve the references before I do that.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I'm not sure about Wikipedia policies, but this article is currently unsourced and doesn't show notability at all. Mr. Goldberg's link above shows that the subject might be notable, but since I can't read the articles, I don't know if they show notability or not.  I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt, but this article could have been fixed in the 2 1/2 years since it was tagged and it hasn't been. Astudent0 (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be some news refs out there, but alot are just based on attendance to events, also per the note above on the magazine articles. It certaintly could be saved if someone with knowledeg of the sport can come along. But otherwise it is a unrefed BLP. 129.215.113.85 (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll get to it this weekend, found a bunch of the issues. Regarding Astudent's statement, per guidelines whether or not the reference is directly available to you to read online is irrelevant. That's not a requirement for usage. What is required is that the statements are sources to a reliable (i.e. editorial oversight) and notable sources, both of whick are satisfied by those published magazines. And of course that any content in the article stays within BLP. I've been involved in bringing articles to GA status before, I'm familiar with what contstitutes reliability and notability in source and content. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you can fix up the article, that would be great. Marty, I interpret Astudent0's comments to simply mean he can't support (or refute) notability claims based on articles he can't read.  I agree with him on that, but I'm hoping your article improvement will show referenced notability.  It's hard for me to believe that all of those articles would be merely "passing mentions", so I expect notability can be shown. Papaursa (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, added the first reference and I'm realizing this article is going to need almost a complete rewrite. I'm not happy it's falling solely on me (since I'm not even affiliated with him or that organization), but as a member of the martial arts project (and active there in relation to this art of Wing Chun) as the saying goes "If not me, who else?" I will embark on the rewrite and significant adding of references this weekend. Just don't have time during the week right now. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * As things stand, this discussion is a delete closure. However, I note that Wgungfu has undertaken to clean up and source the article over the weekend, and would like to give him the opportunity to do so. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to do so. Found copies of two of the magazines, the Martial Arts and Combat Sports cover issue is a long feature article on him. The IKF issue is a direct interview. Taking a break, will do more later tonight. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting in order to make an evaluation of Wgungfu's additions. Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would support allowing more time for Marty to work on the article, if he is continuing with this. Janggeom (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you guys tell me what to do. I found another magazine source, and I will continue if you all think what's been done so far looks promising.  I really don't want to put more work in to it if it's just going to be deleted anyways, as there's other articles that need my attention as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe your work will show him to be notable (at least to me). Papaursa (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Marty, I would be happy to help with editing. I'll see what I can do in the next day or two (I have limited time just now). Janggeom (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2010 (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.