Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamer Şahin


 * 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   no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Tamer Şahin

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Notability. Even though the subject has managed to create a ton of incidental and primary, none are independent and establish notability. This appears to be an autobiography that is overlinked yet undersourced. Dennis Brown  (talk)  01:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Is there a reason not to consider SecurityFocus and Verisign independent secondary sources? Surely Wired, Milliyet and Hürriyet are independent reliable secondary sources, together providing more than enough coverage to establish notability. --Lambiam 11:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Having your name listed as "$name discovered this virus" isn't significant coverage, which WP:GNG requires. The issue isn't quantity, it is quality of coverage.   Dennis Brown   (talk)  13:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You stated that none of the sources are independent and implied that none are secondary; that statement is totally false.
 * In my opinion, the Milliyet and Hürriyet sources provide significant coverage. Maybe you disagree, but then please explain why.
 * --Lambiam 22:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – I also find this subject falls far short of WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, especially as it pertains to third party coverage that is both reliable and substantial. I also find it hilarious that a single phrase would be supported by over 30 cites – it's just a claim he has made an announcement, with zero third party coverage to indicate significance. This kind of misleading prose and citation fits perfectly among the glut of WP:BLPSPS, related party publications, and insubstantial coverage. It's simply WP:TOOSOON to turn this into a viable article. JFHJr (㊟) 21:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you explain in what respect the articles in Milliyet and Hürriyet fail to meet the requirement of WP:GNG of providing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? --Lambiam 22:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   04:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)



Here the list of sources that would contribute towards notability: An uninvolved Turkish speaking experienced Wikipedia opinion on the sources listed is really needed here.--Otterathome (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2000/11/13/haber/hab02.html (turkish) - profile on him
 * 2) http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2000/11/08/ekonomi/eko03a.html (turkish) - his hacking on a bank system
 * 3) http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,56481,00.html - Article on an unrelated incident, last three paragraphs are about him publishing internal Microsoft docs. A mention in passing.
 * 4) http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/ShowNew.aspx?id=5999287 (turkish) - appears to be a general profile on subject
 * Delete and Useerfy until the article meets or at least approaches Wikipedia WP:GNG and WP:SOURCES standards. I would accept Keep only if all claims not verified by an independent, verifiable source are removed. The subject may be notable enough for an article but the existing article that is nominated for deletion is WP:PROMOTION and makes many unverified or exaggerated claims, failing WP:NPOV.  For example, the article says that a documentary film was made about Tamer but the film exists only on YouTube.com in Tamer Şahin's YouTube channel, a WP:POV and WP:COI problem.  The article states that Tamer Şahin "lectures about being a hacker and its philosophy at universities" but the citation is to his own website and, in his website, the only evidence given is a link to photographs of him gesturing in photographs in albums on his FaceBook page. I could find no independent documentation that he actually lectured at a university. Most lectures on a university campus are well publicized on the Internet. DocTree (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2012 (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.