Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seyhan Kurt (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 delete.  Our French-speaking colleagues seem to have come to the same conclusion. Sandstein (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Seyhan Kurt
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has had a speedy delete requests, been prodded a couple times and been to AFD before. The subject also has nearly identical articles in 5 other languages et:Seyhan Kurt, fr:Seyhan Kurt, 'Italic text' it:Seyhan Kurt, pt:Seyhan Kurt, tr:Seyhan Kurt. There is every indication that subject should be notable and that great references should be available, the problem is that while of this should be possible none of it seems to actually be true. The Basic criteria is A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. With five languages articles to chose from not a single one has a reliable non-primary references.

There is no indication or claim in the English language version of the article that subject meets the Notability requirements for Any biography
 * 1) The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
 * 2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field

There also is no indication or claim in the English language version of the article that subject meets the Notability requirements for Notability_%28people%29


 * 1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
 * 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * 3) The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * 4) The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

I came across this article while working Unreferenced articles and have no vested interest in the article or the subject other then to ensure that article meets at least the barest minimum of verifiability, by including at least one reliable published (online or offline) reference. If such a reference was available I would have much preferred to included it in the article rather then bring this article to AFD. A good faith effort to find a reliable reference was not successful.

Additionally per WP:V ''The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.''

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

This article's complete content has been challenged a number of times, but in two years not a single reliable reference has been provided.

I ask the community if this article should be deleted for failing Notability (people) and Verifiability. Jeepday (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to the nominator for a well-researched nomination. I had previously PRODded this article at the end of March on grounds of its being unreferenced for so long, and I think the nominator's most important point here is that the burden of evidence lies with the creator of content: it is up to those who create an article to establish notability, not to others to disprove it. The nominator's checks usefully confirm that Kurt exists and has published, but that's all, and publication alone is not enough to establish notability. I know that there are some cases where notability can only be established by those who now their way around specialist or non-English-language-sources, even when a google search draws blanks, but two years is more than long enough to wait in the hope that notability will be established. DGG is right that Turkish-language skills would probably be needed to establish notability, but I believe that DGG's arguments here amount to an inversion of proof and if we were to assume that non-English-language writers are notable unless proven otherwise, we would be driving a coach-and-horses through WP:V. I'm aware that there are systemic bias issues here, but for me the clincher is that even the Turkish-language article on Kurt is unreferenced, which for me offsets any concerns that this is an English-language-bias issue. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The only Ghit I found that I could read (after removing Wikipedia and Facebook from my search) was a French website for finding old classmates (anyone read Turkish?).  The Library of Congress has no mention of him (I also searched for his books, in both Turkish and English, with the same results), so I'm inclined to say if he's published he's probably not notable; however, I'm not sure what its limitations are.  Overall, I'm seeing no indication of notability, but my recommendation is "weak" because it's reasonable to suppose I may have missed something.   Anturiaethwr  Talk  13:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Uncertain I deprodded it a while back on the basis that the poetry was probably notable, but this will obviously need reviews or references of some sort. Given that they will be in Turkish, I do not have the ability to look for them, nor can I check whether the books are widely held in Turkish libraries. Someone who knows the language is needed. I did do some quick fixes to the poorly translated article on the basis of the article in the French wikipedia. DGG (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice to recreation if notability per WP:BIO is established at a later date.
 * BHG, I said uncertain, not keep. DGG (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete there really appears to be no notability here and the other language articles offer no substance to redress that concern. I will take this to pages a supprimer on French wiki as well. Smells like vanity to me. Eusebeus (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional note. So, in the languages I can read, viz. French, Portuguese and Italian, these are the same copy and paste jobs. Moreover, every single article on all these wikis was the product of an editor for whom this is their sole contribution - and not one has an actual account. No evidence of notability and strong WP:VAIN concerns here. Eusebeus (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - unreferenced for two years, we have to draw the line somewhere. Marasmusine (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notwithstanding WP:BIO (claimed to have met in previous Afd), as no independent secondary sources at all can be found, we must delete.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2008 (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.