Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necati Arabaci (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The consensus is that he meets the criteria for inclusion. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Necati Arabaci
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Criminal who fails Wikipedia's notability guideline for criminals, and does not meet the general notability guideline because coverage was essentially routine (as per Wikipedia is not a news source). Claritas § 18:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Not sure why this was relisted, as no consensus is not the same thing as no discussion. I'd urge anyone looking at this to look at the last AFD.  Assuming the translations are correct, he's notable, and the article is well sourced - if a bit rough in the prose department. But I'm open to argument.  Livitup (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is that Arabaci does not meet any of the criteria of WP:PERP - the reporting of his sentencing in regional newspapers was routine coverage which does not substantiate notability, per the policy WP:NOTNEWS. Claritas § 19:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I PRODed this several weeks ago. My rationale was "Poorly sourced (references are only in German); doubtful notability (no article on German Wikipedia); BLP and libel concerns. Article creator has since been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing." This still looks like a worthless piece of trouble-making from a banned editor with a history of apparently racist editing and article creation. RolandR (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There's rather a lot of use of 'reputedly' in the article - and I too am concerned about possible BLP issues and the sourcing. There is this "In 2004 the Turkish gang leader Necati Arabaci was sentenced to 9 years in prison for pimping, human trafficking, assault, extortion, weapons violations and racketeering.[24] His gang of bouncers controlled the night clubs in Cologne's entertainment district, the Ring, where they befriended girls in order to exploit them as prostitutes.[25] After Arabaci's arrest, informants overhead threats against the responsible prosecutor who received police protection and fled the country in 2007 when Arabci was deported to Turkey.[26]" on Prostitution in Germany (Miscellaneous events 2002–2006) - do we need this article? Peridon (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to note, the fact that a source is not in English, does not make it any less of a reliable source. Whatever happens, I implore the closing admin to look at the first AfD for this article and pay particular attention to the Wikipedians who translated the source articles and made comments on their reliability.  Just because you can't read it, doesn't make it untrue (or unreliable).  EN Wikipedia should still maintain a world-view.--Livitup (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is true. But, as I noted in the earlier AfD, "as a non-German speaker, I have no way of knowing if they actually confirm the assertions made in the article. Per Verifiability, 'When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors'; in the absence of such a verifiable reference, I am reluctant to accept the assessment of the editor who added these, and has since been indefinitely blocked for 'disruptive editing'." If the sources cited confirm the allegations, then they should be translated so that non-German speakers can assess rthis. If they fail to confirm the allegations, these should be removed. RolandR (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In response, I point you to the translations provided by Cyfal at the end of the discussion for the first AfD. No, they aren't full source translations, but he/she translated enough to confirm that the source articles are accurately represented in the WP article, and that the sources themselves are reliable sources (not any more 'regional newspapers' than the Boston Herald or Minneapolis Star-Tribune are).  The other question is wether he meets the notability of WP:PERP.  I think that the first criteria of PERP is a little misleading... Was Al Capone notable for anything other than committing crimes? --Livitup (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the last AfD (see this), I've tried to translate the relevant parts of the sources, and also tried to gave the non-German-speaking contributors to the AfD a feeling what kind of newspapers the sources are. Note, that in this discussion, I voted for deletion. However some months later I tend somewhat more to my inclusionist nature, so for the 2nd nomination, I don't vote at all... --Cyfal (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: This article should never been re listed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why ? Last discussion closed as no consensus. Claritas § 08:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't understand the argument that coverage is "essentially routine". The person has been the subject of nontrivial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 16:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage is not necessarily non-trivial because it appears a) in regional, not national papers, and b) simply reports on his sentencing and crimes committed. See the requirements of WP:PERP and the examples given. Claritas § 10:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep The sources seem adequate    DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:PERP. criminals get reported all the time in papers. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Sources are reliable. Focus is not a regional newspaper. --Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage in several major newspapers from 2002 to 2008 which to me meets our standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources". If there are any BLP/Libel issues, remove the sentence in question. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2010 (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.