Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erkin Alptekin


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Erkin Alptekin

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

Unsourced BLP of marginal notability. Either it should be sourced or deleted. RMHED (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Again, a search quickly brings up references. I didn't even do a regular search, that was enough.  I don't think you understand:  AFD isn't for article that need work, it is for article you tried to find sources on and couldn't.  You tag articles that need work, you don't delete them.   P HARMBOY  ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand that all contentious BLP content should be sourced or deleted. I'm challenging the content of this BLP, therefore it is by definition contentious. So source or it or it will be removed. RMHED (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Exactly what part of the content is contentious? Yes, we have to get it right, but this mass of AfD nominations looks increasingly WP:POINT-ish to me. AfD is not cleanup. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Any part of a BLP that is unsourced and challenged is therefore by definition contentious. RMHED (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please indicate the policy that states this? I have a very different understanding of WP:BLP and WP:V.   P HARMBOY  ( moo ) ( plop ) 01:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Right here it states that unsourced contentious content should be removed. Now the definition of contentious is 'likely to cause argument' Well here we are arguing over it so it's definitely contentious. RMHED (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have argued about policy. You can't just say "I'm going to argue about everything, thus it is contentious" and make it a self fulfilling prophecy for the convenience of AFDing everything.   P HARMBOY  ( moo ) ( plop ) 03:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep As evidenced by Pharmboy, the subject is notable. Upon review of the article, I don't see anything that's negative or slanderous.  In my view, the BLP policy is not a license to nominate all unsourced BLP's for AFD. Fraud  talk to me  03:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Failure to follow due process. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what we are all debating at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents right now.  P HARMBOY  ( moo ) ( plop ) 12:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and verifiable person discussed in reliable sources. I have started to add sources to the article, and it's clear that there are other sources available which can be added that would support most or all of the content of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The article can be improved by regular editing processes; there seem to be lots of references out there.  Trying to delete the article rather than improving it seems like a non-starter idea to me.  Celarnor Talk to me  15:19, 2 November 2008 (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.