Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murad Gümen


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Murad Gümen

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

In [OTRS Ticket#2009010810024398] at https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2333277&ArticleID=2752114&QueueID=59 (for those with OTRS access), a representative for the BLP subject presented the subject's request that the article be removed.

This is a housekeeping action only, I have no opinion as to the outcome. - Philippe 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I can't seem to find any policy or guidelines on this type of situation.  Wikipedia is not censored, and its goal is to write an encyclopedia, not to satisfy different individuals.  While I would be all for fulfilling peoples' requests when appropriate, I think we have to stick to the main goal of writing an encyclopedia.  Note that we have to make sure this follows all guidelines and policy for biographies of living people.  So, as I see it now, I would recommend keeping this. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This request probably stems from some controversy concerning the Tall Armenian Tale website, as mentioned in the article. I think we're treading on thin ice to even mention that there might be some evidence that he is related to that website.  I would say we should avoid all statements that cannot be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially for BLPs. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per arguments below, namely WP:NPF and the fact that notability is going to be really hard to show, especially after removing OR and references to the authorship of the site. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I removed the original research at the end of that paragraph. Lets  drink  Tea  22:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:BLP and WP:NPF apply here. The man is clearly a relatively unknown figure as there is no significant coverage about his work. All the sources refer to the potentially defamatory claim made by others (one includes the irrelevant tidbit about his father) and of the four, two are not reliable sources. I opt for delete on the basis that the subject is a relatively unknown figure, notability outside of these claims is not demonstrated, that the claims are potentially defamatory and harmful to the subject's reputation, and that he has requested deletion. The possibility of harm to a living person is the most important factor here in my view. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the WP:NPF link- I somehow missed that on the BLP page. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment this request for deletion apparently involves the subject's possible connection with a political site, & I imagine the subject considers that the very suggestion is harmful to him. I want to consider the article regardless of the subject's view: about half the article seems to be the authorship of that site. I've looked at the english translations linked in the article & I've checked the talk p, and the ANI discussions at . I do not think the quality of the documentation is sufficient to sustain the section. The question is whether the notability otherwise can be shown. It might, but I don't think the present references address that adequately.  DGG (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tricky. I kind of come up with the same answer as DGG. This is the sort of issue where I think sometimes we need a judging panel. My inclination, open to change, would be to delete with a huge note that there's no prejudice against a better sourced article, or something like.  Hiding T 12:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find any evidence that the subject is notable for his animation work, and I don't think that we can keep the information on his alleged Armenian genocide denial. For those unfamilar with the subject I would point out that the Armenian genocide was, although later surpassed later in terms of numbers killed, was one of the greatest atrocities of the 20th century. We certainly shouldn't base an article on one accusation of denial, just as we wouldn't have an article about a person based on one accusation of holocaust denial. If the subject does have any notability for his work then we should delete this and start from scratch without mentioning the accusation. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment maybe the article should be about the website, with the animation info removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete following WP:NPF and WP:BLP and given that the core of their notability 9as an animator is not demonstrated I suspect WP:UNDUE raises its head here too. Anyone can accuse someone else of something (a newspaper article portrayed me as three angry Americans once - innocent on all three counts) but it doesn't make it true or worthy of inclusion. So neither parts separately or combined prove notability and I can see why they'd be concerned about such claims as they could prove damaging to one's career, at the very least (you could also fear for your physical safety being linked to such a contentious issue). (Emperor (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Comment He worked on various things which were notable, but did he have a notable part in them? Not every single animator is notable, are they?  Any awards won?  Also, if that website is notable enough to mention, I found wikipedia history which links to a site that traces IP addresses of websites.  His official website has the exact IP address with the site mentioned, providing its from him.  That is the one key fact that would link him to it without any doubt, wouldn't it?  Is that a massively popular or commonly talked about site though?  If so, it deserves its own article, with the evidence of who created it listed there, since it'd be relevant.  Genocide is horrible, but if someone famous went crazy and denied something, that wouldn't make them invisible to history.   D r e a m Focus  19:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Technical note - IP addresses are not conclusive evidence for much of anything. There can be several hundred sites being served from one shared server on the same IP, and the only link between them is that they chose the same hosting provider. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-technical note. While agreeing with LinguistAtLarge, I would add that we are not the ones to judge whether an IP address is sufficient evidence for this claim. To do so would be original research. We can't make the potentially career-threatening (if not worse) claim that someone is an Armenian genocide denier without very strong reliable sources to substantiate it. We don't currently have such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:32, 14 March 2009 (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.