Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melis Bilen


 * 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   delete. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Melis Bilen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Person does not notable. Page has been deleted many times in Turkish Wikipedia. Esc2003 (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 17.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  17:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Little evidence of substantial coverage from WP:RS sources for this SPA creation--this one seems to be about the best. The rest seem to be primary, social media, or fluff. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No substantial coverage in reliable sources. The fact that it has been deleted on the Turkish Wikipedia suggests that there are not sufficient Turkish language sources either. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Deleted in tr.wiki from lack of any reliable sources. Same applies here.--Khutuck (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hürriyet, Milliyet, Kıbrıs Gazetesi and TRT all are reliable sources. Also, neither the deletion discussion at the Turkish Wikipedia nor the deletion log explicitly mention a lack of reliable sources; they just state (without further elaboration) that the subject fails the criteria for encyclopedic significance. --Lambiam 20:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the sources, but that doesn't mean that the particular items referenced are substantial (I don't think they are). Also, even for a WP:RS source, there are degrees--for a WP:RS newspaper, is it a front-page item? Buried as filler in the classified section? In the online-only "lifestyles" section? In the online-only "lifestyles" section's blog? For example, the best-of-the-lot source that I referenced (above) seems somewhere inside this spectrum. I will say that it was fascinating to look at the Turkish AfD--although the voting returned an unanimous delete result, they don't seem to go in for a lot of chit-chat over there, do they? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The first three references are to independent reliable sources that provide non-trivial coverage, which is sufficient to meet WP:MUSICBIO. --Lambiam 13:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is for inadequate first version. Discussed for last version in user talk pages (1, 2, 3). -- Esc2003 (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  — --Lambiam 12:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, marginally notable. Meets the criterion #1 for notability set forth at WP:MUSICBIO. (The article could do with some serious pruning, though; it is now blown up beyond proportion.) --Lambiam 13:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Khutuck --Tacci2023 (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This article absulately is not notable.--Reality006 (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Reality006 -- Sabri76' talk 13:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I didn't check the sources. But from what I gathered from the text, she is notable enough to say in Wikipedia. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lambiam. the middle-market sources seem sufficiently far from unreliable or trivial, even for a BLP. also bare accounts of tr wiki happenings are irrelevant and poisoning the well. if there is an argument against the sources beyond Hobbes' reservations please make it here. the laconic delete votes are just puzzling. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep When all sources and content are analysed in detail, it obviously is notable. The page should definitely be kept.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.161.213 (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2011 (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.