Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murat Arslan


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Murat Arslan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. Sole claim to notability appears to be cheating an online poll in 1998. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Google News gives sources that can be used to expand the article. This person meets WP:NBIO. See below. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? All the GNews results I am seeing are about a different Murat Arslan; a judge. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete because this person is a different one from the politician in the Google News, per what the nominator said above. The computer person is the one that does not appear in reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article can be recreated to be about the judge or politician after this AfD for the specialist gets closed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable computer engineer. The judge may be notable, but rewriting the existing article to be about him is not the right way forward.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2017 (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.