Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erdinç Tekir


 * 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 but possibly merge/redirect. Continued discussion on the article's talk page will be needed to determine if and where to target a merger/redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Erdinç Tekir

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article do not meet the general notability guideline. Kavas (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that one of Mavi Marmara passangers was a former hijacker, but that does not mean there should be an article for this man. There are only two special things in his life. Besides, he was not the leader of that hijacking event, the leader was Muhammed Emin Tokcan. In addition, there is nothing iconic about him that deserves a page, and practically you cannot write an article about a person with such little significance. Kavas (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not a rap sheet or a detective agency.Borock (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There are indeed two very special things in this man's life. The first is that he was part of a an armed group of Islamist militants that hijacked a civilian ferryboat and held over 200 people hostage for three days, threatening to blow the boat up with the passengers aboard if Russia did not pull its army out of Chechnya.  He was convicted and served time in a Turkish prison.   Most of the sourced material in the article has been removed, and needs to be replaced.AMuseo (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This contribution appears to make unsourced allegations about a living person and should therefore be removed. PatGallacher (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * His first activity is hijacking and we are sure that he was an hijacker. His second activity is being on the ship seized by Israeli Army. Yes, he was on the ship, but it's not cited that he resisted violently as far as I know. Even if he resisted violently, there is no need to write an article about him as there are many people who resisted violently on that ship. Kavas (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There are problems in your comment not directly related to this discussion, but I have to correct them otherwise voters would not know the truth. Firstly, the Circassians who hijacked the Avrasya ferry were not convicted of terrorism, as the Turkish laws (See (http://www.mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr/html/809.html) define terrorism as an attack on the Republic. Though he served in the prison, the Court convicted him of hijacking not of terrorism as the hijacking was not considered as against the Republic (http://arsiv.ntvmsnbc.com/news/78509.asp). As Muhammed Emin Tokcan, the leader of the group, is a Circassian man (comes from a family deported from Circassia by Russia in 1856 who settled in Turkey), the group is more pro-Chechen than Islamist. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/apr/26/chechnya.worlddispatch) Kavas (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You also have to prove that the MV Mavi Marmara passangers had guns, I know they took rifles from Israeli soldiers (FM Davutoğlu had a talk with Barak, reportedly Barak told Davutoğlu that the passangers fired at soldiers with captured rifles.)Kavas (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Now this is my comment on the reason of your vote:"That's directly related to the discussion here: I think that when you take up arms in a way that draws the attention of the world press twice, you are sufficiently notable to have an article". First of all, do you know he took up arms, or is it your guess? For example, Ken O'Keefe took the rifles of soldiers, but we have no information whether Mr. Tekir took guns. If you can find a source for it, please cite it. In the first event, the significiant thing is the hijacking event, not particularly Mr. Tekin's involvement. In the second event, the flotilla raid got world's attention not because of his presence at the ship. If he did something special in the raid, like killing someone or being killed, that would get world's attention, but this is not so. He did not become a hero in Turkey. The page of Ali Heyder Bengi was deleted as people decided that he is not notifiable although he was killed. There is not a "Significant coverage" for "himself". He is only noted for his participation in that flotilla where people was killed after hijacking a ferry 14 years ago. You cannot open a page for any terrorist you want, there should be something special about them, for example German Wikipedia has an article on Zeynep Kınacı (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeynep_K%C4%B1nac%C4%B1) as she is the first female suicide bomber of PKK. His presence at the ship can be noted somewhere else in Wikipedia, but that does not mean an article should be written about him. Kavas (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gaza flotilla raid etc. Takabeg (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Now we have enough information about him. Takabeg (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep documented terrorist, not just a 'militant'. Quite notable for WP. --Shuki (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Terrorist is a value-laden word to be avoided per WP:LABEL (.i.e. POV) (signed later on, unintended) -DePiep (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * comment This discussion could benefit from the help of someone able to consult Russian-language and Turkish-language newspapers for coverage of Tekir's involvement with the ferryboat hijacking, of the IHH (Turkish NGO) and of the Gaza flotilla raid.  This AFD  seems premature ... .AMuseo (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom, or merge if there is anything of value to the flotilla raid article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep reliable and verifiable sources are provided to show that this individual has received ongoing media coverage, establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Black Sea hostage crisis unless more substantial coverage of the person can be found. Let's consider the various notability guidelines first. We need to consider the general notability guideline, the basic notability criteria for people, and the special notability criteria for criminals.
 * WP:GNG requires "significant coverage", defined as "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". We have a small number of short articles from Turkish reliable sources, which are all about the story: Erdinç Tekir, one of the IHH members wounded on board the Mavi Marmara was in fact a terrorist. These articles are not at all interested in the person Erdinç Tekir – where and when he was born, his background, his motivations etc. – but only in the fact that his person proves an overlap between the Mavi Marmara passengers and pro-Chechen terrorists. IMO this is not "significant coverage".
 * According to WP:BASIC, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Given that we learn almost nothing about the man except his participation in two notable events, I argue that we have only trivial coverage.
 * Application of WP:PERPETRATOR is somewhat problematic, since it silently assumes a single perpetrator. But in the Black Sea incident Erdinç Tekir seems to be mentioned only in the context of a complete list of the hijackers (can someone verify this?). Therefore criterion 3 (which applies to the Black Sea hijacking) is not sufficient here. Criterion 2 clearly does not apply, leaving us with criterion 1: "The perpetrator is notable for something beyond the crime itself." Given that he was far from the only perpetrator in that case, and the only other thing he is arguably notable for is being wounded on board the Mavi Marmara (and the overlap I mentioned above), this does not appear sufficient.
 * Additional concerns are BLP and NPOV.
 * BLP (which tends to take precedence over everything else), more specifically its section WP:BLP1E, says very clearly: "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." In this case reliable sources have covered the subject only in the context of two events, but in the coverage of the first event he merely appeared on a list of 9 people (clearly not enough to establish notability), and in the second he would not have been mentioned at all had he not participated in the first. Therefore the spirit of this principle applies, as does the rationale: "Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view." (See next items.) In this case BLP advises: "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article [...]." The last sentence says: "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." While there is no doubt about the significance of the two events, there is no persistent coverage of Erdinç Tekir in reliable sources.
 * In its current form the article violates WP:COATRACK. It is not about the man but about the fact that there was a former terrorist on board the Mavi Marmara. (Something that Israeli sources such as the IDF had persistently claimed without any proof at all.) It's not acceptable to create a BLP article just for such a bit of information that can easily be included in another article (in fact, in several other articles).
 * Taking everything together, unless someone can find more detailed coverage of the Black Sea hijacking he is not notable at this time, although he comes relatively close and things could certainly change. E.g. a Turkish newspaper might decide to interview him and publish a portrait piece. BLP1E advises us to redirect the name to "the event article". Since his role in the first incident appears to have been a lot more active and significant than in the second, that's the correct redirect target. I guess Black Sea hostage crisis should also be updated with a short mention of the connection to the Gaza incident. Hans Adler 09:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: this is a great analysis, taking our policy on notability and such onto a higher level. -DePiep (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Black Sea hostage crisis, Hans Adler states the case very well. I think this discussion has become a vehicle for all sorts of pov-pushing, unwarranted synthesis, and unsourced attacks on several living people. PatGallacher (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Black Sea hostage crisis as per Hans Adler above -DePiep (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I may support a redirect, but I see no reason to choose Black Sea hostage crisis as a target over MV Mavi Marmara or vice versa.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources within the article appear to establish notablity and there does not appear to be a viable target for a merger.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources in the article seem to show that he's received significant coverage. Apparently notable for two events, so a redirect isn't a good idea. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The notable thing should be himself, not the events. In this case, the events are notable. Kavas (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. Media coverage is based on the controversies surrounding the MV Mavi Marmara . --Jmundo (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't this interview from before that event? Alzarian16 (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Black Sea hostage crisis. Per comments above. Spatulli (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix up style. Being actively involved in two notable maritime incidents makes one notable. A redirect, even if it were a good idea in principle, would run into the problem of which incident to redirect to, as several editors have pointed out. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:08, 5 September 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.