Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oz Yilmaz (director)


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Oz Yilmaz (director)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. WP:BLP of a writer and film director with no strong claim to passing our notability standards for either endeavour. The only real indication of notability here is that he and his work exist, and the referencing is entirely to primary sources with the exception of a short blurb in a magazine that isn't substantive enough to carry notability all by itself as the article's only independent and reliable source. As always, Wikipedia is not a free alternative to LinkedIn -- he could be eligible to have an article if one could be properly sourced to media coverage, but he's not automatically entitled to have one just because primary sources nominally confirm that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I will look immediately for a properly sourced media interview to show eligibility for surpassing the notability standards as opposed to simply existing.

I have added citations for interviews and articles done on Oz Yilmaz and his works. These sources include

-cbc radio -LeDevoir Magainze (independent reliable publishing from Montreal) -The Concordian (University Publishing, also independant) -ISO1200, a photography magazine -gaypers.com, journal website centered on the LGBT community - fuges.com

These sources objectively prove that Oz Yilmaz is a notable figure in the Montreal community as these are very notable, reliable, independent sources. I hope this hereby dismisses any claims questioning Oz Yilmaz's notability.

Hello,

This page is currently under threat of deletion because the page lacked independent, credible citing to prove Oz Yilmaz is a notable figure. Since the threat of deletion, I have added citations to articles and/or interviews with Oz Yilmaz from credited papers and news outlets such as CBC radio/ LeDevoir Magazine/ The Concordian/ Iso1200 magazine/ gaypers.com and fugures.com/

These sources show without question that Oz Yilmaz is a notable and important figure in the Montreal community which should allow for the threat for deletion to cease. I would ask that the threat be removed as I have done my part in following all the guidelines and cooperated in adding all missing information.

Thank you

I would appreciate the courtesy of a response and confirmation whether the new citations I have provided satisfy the needs to remove the threat of deletion. Thank you.


 * Tranquilize your horses, dude. You don't need to keep posting over and over again to request an instant response to your question — Wikipedia is a volunteer project, not a paid job, so people can only read and respond to your comments when they're here to read and respond to them, and repeating your request two or three times isn't going to make anything happen any faster than just posting it once and being patient.
 * At any rate, no, the new "sources" you've added are not improving the case. Notability cannot be staked on student newspapers, so The Concordian doesn't assist anything. Interviews with the subject, such as the Radio Canada International link, don't aid notability, because they represent the subject talking about himself rather than third parties writing or talking about him — they can be used for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been cleared by stronger sources, but they cannot count toward the basic question of whether GNG has been cleared in the first place. Gaypers and ISO1200 are blogs, not reliable sources. Le Devoir helps a little bit, but not much, because it doesn't say anything about him that would constitute a WP:CREATIVE pass.
 * So, at this point, all we've got here for sourcing that counts toward GNG is Fugues and Le Devoir, and even Fugues is still a blurb. If he'd won a Canadian Screen Award or an Oscar, thus passing CREATIVE on the basis of having won a major award for his work, then just one or two valid sources would be enough to start the article with — but if he doesn't actually meet any specific "must-include" criterion, and instead you're going for "he's notable just because media coverage about him exists", then it takes more media coverage about him than just one article in Le Devoir and a blurb in Fugues. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Although he is a published author, I can't find enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources to show that he passes WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:33, 13 March 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.