Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mothers of Diyarbakır


 * 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) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Mothers of Diyarbakır

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reviewed under new article review process. This is current news event. According to the article, a sit-in started by dozens of people Sept 2019 and at 134 "families" circa March 2020. IMO does not satisfy not:news nor notability requirements under wp:gng or events. Author removed notability tag and is now blocked for unrelated reasons. North8000 (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  ~ Amkgp  💬  14:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not blocked, just partly blocked on one article for unrelated reasons as you mentioned. I removed the notability tag (according to its guidelines) after putting some extra notability. I assumed the article reached a sufficient level by now.
 * It's not a (one time) news event. The protest and the protesters have been visited by government officials, ambassadors, politicians (local as well as foreign). The PKK commented about it (as mentioned in the article).
 * Newswebsites even have a tag on their own websites about it: Seta (think tank), Independent, Hürriyet, CNN Turk
 * In the meantime, I will try to improve the article by adding extra notability. Randam (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks coverage in reliable sources. All sources are Turkish newspapers, and it is well known there is no freedom of the press in Turkey. Heaviest coverage is in government mouthpieces like Daily Sabah, giving me the impression that this is a government staged public relations stunt. Khirurg (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal. You had me chuckled for a moment by calling ANF (PKK newswebsite) a Turkish newspaper. Nonetheless, I just added additional non-Turkey sources, and deleted "government mouthpiece" source, to meet you halfway. Randam (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete support delete (user withdrew it's delete vote here). It is a theme mainly covered in the Turkish pro-governmental press. There are even SETA sources included. Also I have the impression it is a Governmental stunt, as the Diyarbakir Mothers are allowed to demonstrate but the HDP mostly not. An article about Kurds which is mainly sourced with Turkish owned or Turkish language citations naming a terrorist group is probably not very neutral.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal. The discussion is about notability. Not about whether it's OK that the protest is being misused by the Government. Also, in general, wiki guidelines allow sources in foreign languages. It also allows sources that some individuals may consider non-neutral, giving that the sources are used in a proper way. Nonetheless, I just added additional non-Turkish and non-Turkey sources to address your complaints. Randam (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Randam, just addressing your comment (not your new sources).... This isn't a question of what sources Wikipedia allows, it is of whether it has the amount and type of coverage specified in wp:GNG in order to exist as a separate article. It requires some in-depth coverage of the topic by multiple indpendent wp:RS sources, with "multiple" usually meanign at least 2.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep It is has good sources and you can find several english sources in google. And many notable events happened, include HDP reaction, Turkish first lady visit and growing numbers etc. Shadow4dark (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - plenty, plenty of coverage. And to be clear, the fact that most of the sources are non-English by no means disqualifies for notability. Article by Anadolu Agency (national press agency) (googling ""Diyarbakır Anneleri" on site:aa.com.tr gives 8,750 hits), here an AA piece on COVID-19 impact on the protest:, piece on TRT (national TV channel) , CNN Türk piece on solidarity action in Srebenica with the protest , another CNN Türk piece on the protest  (in fact googling "Diyarbakır Anneleri" on site:cnnturk.com gives 380 hits), Hurriyet coverage on the protest (googling "Diyarbakır Anneleri" on site:hurriyet.com.tr gives 301 hits), coverage by Reuters , article in Evrensel (linked to Emek Partisi) on opposition leader/CHP chairman Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu criticizing Labour Minister for visiting the protest site  etc, etc. --Soman (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to be plenty of Azerbaijani websites having coverage on the protest, such as, , here an article in Al-Estiklal newspaper . --Soman (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Article in Der Tagesspiegel:, article in Süddeutsche Zeitung , article in Die Tageszeitung , article in Libération , article in El País , article in Avvenire --Soman (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I can see 20 independent sources. That is more than enough. Rathfelder (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I didn't analyze the new sources but in the few days since I nominated this for deletion 14 references have been added and the article has expanded significantly. North8000 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @, did you perform WP:BEFORE before nominating the article for deletion? --Soman (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not that you should be asking that, but Yes. What is your purpose for asking? North8000 (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment' If somebody really wants to get this sorted out / establish that it should stay, it's not a matter of count of references mentioning it. They should find and point out 1-2 references suitable for wp:GNG] criteria (in depth coverage by wp:rs independent sources) or establish meeting special criteria at Notability (events).  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you yourself search for possible sources before nominating the article? All the links in this edit (i.e. the articles in Der Tagesspiegel, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Tageszeitung, Libération, El País, Avvenire) qualifies as 'in depth coverage by wp:rs independent sources'. --Soman (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how much you are into the Turkish/Kurdish ares as editors, but I must say the liberation source is the most respective source for now. It speaks of a Turkish Government propaganda for now, but the editor only uses it as to show an image of protesters before the HDP headquarters. In the image there are people depicted in front of the HDP headquarters protected by police. Protected by police! It is a strong opposition to the fact that people protesting against violence against women, or protesting against the dismissal of HDP mayors are being suppressed with very violent opposition by the police. It is an obvious State propaganda, that should be named as suchParadise Chronicle (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @, I'm not sure exactly what argument you're seeking to make, but the article was nominated for deletion for supposed lack of notability. The Yes or No question is whether there is in-dept coverage in independent third-party sources. I'd say that there is, and I think it has been demonstrated both in this AfD discussion. What you think of the politics or context of the event is irrelevant to whether it is notable or not. --Soman (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the AFD discussion, I think that the argument was that as such the sources may not be independent. Also I would imagine that a gauge of true independence of a source and wp:GNG-suitable depth of coverage is that they at least discuss the obvious possibility that this is a state-orchestrated phenomena. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So, in order to qualify as independent references they must align to your own POV? The term 'independent' is misused in this conversation and I think Independent sources is a good reading. We wouldn't qualify a press release or a bulletine issued by the protest group as an independent, third party source. But we can't disqualify TRT, AA, Daily Sabah etc on the same criteria. We may use discretion in the way sources are presented, we may use caution in the way data and factoids from these sources are represented in the article mainspace (see Reliable_sources, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.") but they are by no means disqualified from being used to indicate notability. Regardless whether you dislike the protest or consider it politically illegitimate, if it is discussed in-dept across various news outlets with millions of viewers/readers it is notable to have a Wiki article of its own. --Soman (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Soman you are crossing the line. You are inventing things I didn't say and don't think in order to try to deprecate me and what I wrote. Neither you nor anybody has done the simple thing that would settle this in the way that you prefer.  "find and point out 1-2 references suitable for wp:GNG] criteria (in depth coverage by wp:rs independent sources)"  The others could look at and discuss those (including translating them if needed). It should be simple if they do indeed exist.   If someone establishes that it has this type of coverage I would change my position to "keep"  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also you you are mixing up two different criteria. The are that you quoting describes the criteria to be suitable in general for Wikipedia.  The source criteria for establishing wp:notability are those listed at WP:Notability <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you are the one misrepresenting the concepts. WP:GNG refers back to WP:RS (which I pointed to in the comment above). You nominated the article for deletion, seemingly without respecting WP:BEFORE, based on the argument "IMO does not satisfy not:news nor notability requirements under wp:gng or events". We established here that the protest is covered, not in passing but in articles where the protest is the main subject of the article, by TRT, Anadolu Agency, Daily Sabah, Evrensel, Hürriyet, Der Tagesspiegel, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Tageszeitung, Libération, El País, Avvenire, various Azerbaijani media, etc.. So WP:GNG should be an easy pass. So with WP:GNG ticked, what is the rationale to delete the article? --Soman (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG defines the type of coverage required to meet WP:GNG which is a higher standard than wp:RS in several respects, notably in depth coverage and independent. The vague statement "refers back to" could mean dozens of different things none of which affect the previous sentence and none of which or void the definition in WP:GNG. As I said before, if they exist, point out 1 or two sources that constitute such coverage and I would then become a proponent of keeping the article. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not "independent", it's "independent from the subject". Let's summarize:


 * The circulation ranking of Turkish newspapers estimates originate from List of newspapers in Turkey. --Soman (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * withdraw delete vote. I have adapted the article. It is a good article to explain the limited "freedom of expression" in Turkey. At first I thought there were no other sources, sorry. But thank you for the discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * keep Still no identification of 1-2 independent sources with in depth coverage ("non-trivial mention" is not that) but based on Paradise Chronicle's assessment, and that they have found sourcing to add the "more objective overview" material which they added, I've switched my opinion to "keep". Again, 10 week old article has had a burst of new material and sources in the few days since it was nominated and so that also looks like a nice outcome of the process. Note that this is a "keep" and not a "withdraw".....the latter would be an overreach considering the substantive discussion that has occurred here. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources per the above source analysis and my own review. Meets WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.