Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hattat Aziz 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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hattat Aziz Efendi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no evidence of notablity Redsky89 (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ...except for the freaking monograph about him cited under references? Look, this is a substub, and it can well be merged into "Ottoman calligraphy" or "list of Ottoman calligraphers" if you are up to the task of compiling these. But there are no grounds for deletion. --dab (𒁳) 14:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment I note that the English article was created long ago than the tr: one (2012‎ by ) but the tr: article is much longer now. Perhaps someone can translate and thereby expand this article. Solomon7968 12:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was definetley a notable calligrapher. I've tried to expand the article. I am not that good in English, could you please check and edit it?--Basak (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep Now the article is quite ok in shape. Having calligraphic panels hanging in a notable Mosque (I note the article on the mosque is currently unreferenced) is not in itself enough for notability but having personally invited from a King presumably is; assuming that it is a very selective honour. Solomon7968 16:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Solomon7968 16:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Solomon7968 16:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Solomon7968 16:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry, but I didn't even bother to type "keep" because this is quite clearly a spurious submission. There in't the remotest appearance of a "case" for deletion here, so I see no reason to even begin to argue. The article can be merged for being a stub, no deletion debate necessary. It can always be re-created with the addition of content, no deletion review necessary, but there is nothing in our deletion guidelines that would suggest a "debate" here. The submitter said "no evidence of notablity"; they apparently copy-pasted the phrase from somewhere, but as the article has cited a full monograph about the subject for years, that phrase as no applicability to the case, and the submitting user either does not understand the phrase, or deletion guidelines, or the information in the article. Either way, there is nothing to see here and I have to ask why this is relisted rather than speedy-closed as spurious. --dab (𒁳) 10:39, 1 September 2015 (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.