Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Bey Barmada


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Mustafa Bey Barmada

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

COI copy of Draft:Mustafa Bey Barmada which has been declined. SK2242 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete the mainspace copy.  Java Hurricane  15:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Copying and pasting your own work into mainspace literally within minutes of having submitted it for AFC review in the first place is not the path to getting an article created. The article is not in a good enough state of quality to overlook that problem, however: as written, it is supported entirely by glancing namechecks of the subject's existence, not to content that's substantively about him for the purposes of helping to establish his notability. There are potentially valid notability claims here, but the article still has to be written and referenced better than this before it's actually allowed to go live — but the creator has the opportunity to keep working on the draft to make it better, so deleting this doesn't wreck their work. And the apparent WP:COI (creator's username directly indicates a family connection of some kind) is precisely the reason why we have to insist on proper process here, because it inherently calls the article's credibility into question if the sourcing isn't airtight. Obviously, no prejudice against future approval of the draft if it gets improved properly. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I declined the draft both because it was poorly sourced and because it was duplicated. The duplication of a draft is, at least in my thinking as a reviewer, an indication of sloppy editing by the submitter, and does not warrant a lot of research on the part of the reviewer when it is obvious that the submitter has been sloppy.  Not offering an opinion on the article at this time.  While a reviewer can clean up a draft that obviously belongs in article space, I won't do much cleanup when the submitter hasn't done their cleanup.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as never reviewed and having notability concerns. Did anyone notice that the dates say 1953-1883?  That indicates sloppiness.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2020 (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.