Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 12

Talk:Deaths in April 1996 – UNDELETED. The talk page was previously a G8 speedy, and the parent article was restored. postdlf (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

User request --75.47.137.179 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore per result of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_January_9#Deaths_in_April_1996. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Talk:Joe Reid (aviator) – This is already being debated in an earlier discussion and the deleting admin has stated this could be restored. – Bettia (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

User request --75.47.137.179 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming moderately reasonable deleted content, Undelete Joe Reid (aviator) & Talk:Joe Reid (aviator) as a contested WP:CSD#A7 and list at AfD if not immediately improved. Probably, 75.47.137.179 should first be more verbose with his request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I don't believe this qualifies as an A7 as this wasn't even an article, just a redirect to Jessica Dubroff, and this is a plausible redirect given the connection between the two. I also notice we have Joe Reid (pilot) redirecting to the same article which again seems plausible. Bettia (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed this is also being debated in an earlier discussion and the deleting admin has stated this could be restored. Therefore I'm closing this one. Bettia (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Hasan Sami Bolak – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

First of all sorry for not being good enough at my English. In Turkey like rest of the world there are main two sides in politics. Mr. Hasan Sami Bolak who has been a well known writer, journalist, politician and movement leader for the pat few decades has lots of enemies who dislike his thoughts and politics and also his books etc. In Turkish wikipedia the admins have mainly have Kurdish ethnic identity and are mainly on the opposite side of him. They had a lynch campaign for him in the Turkish wikipedia and in the past and they have deleted his article. Also i believe daily they surf all the blogs, articles about him in the internet community and they dont hasitate to attack him. They are an anti Hasan Sami Bolak Team and they have tried to make his article be deleted in the wikipedia in the past. Now it shows that the had more votes and they have had the article be deleted. Also the two people (yabancı and kibele) are the same people and yabancı is a puppet of kibele and everyone knows it in the Turkish wikipedia. But they always close the case if someone opens a puppet file. And all i want to tell you is that they have just used an adminstrator to achieve their goal. Best regards and have a good day. -- MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The standard you need to address is whether there is sufficient reliable source material to maintain a stand alone article on Hasan Sami Bolak. There doesn't seem to be enough English source material, so that leaves Turkish language sources. The article itself on its face would seem to meet the minimum WP:GNG threshold. The problem you have is that few Wikipedians are able to evaluate Turkish language sources and must rely on experience Wikipedians who can. Pinar, who has been with English Wikipedia since 18 October 2004, gave a very detailed review of the sources cited in the deleted article. That review alone carried the AfD discussion and move the topic well below the minimum WP:GNG threshold. Your DRV request doesn't disagree with Pinar's review, so even you would seem to agree that there is not sufficient reliable source material to maintain a stand alone article on Hasan Sami Bolak within English Wikipedia. Even if Turkish wikipedia had bias as you note, they would end up drawing the same delete conclusion as English Wikipedia based on lack of sufficient reliable source material. If you have additional reliable source material not evaluated at AfD, please post in this discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pınar, Kibele, Yabancı (puppet of kibele) have all opposite political view with Mr. Bolak and these three also are known in the Turkish Wikipedia as the elite admins. They have all kurdish origin and are in the very leftist side of the political spectrum. And again i tell you that they have a lynch campaign for Mr. Bolak who once was also cracking their absolute monarch like administration in the Turkish Wikipedia. Look at the Turkish Wikipedia now. They dont care that the articles are full of wandalism but they just run a hunt season for rightist and nationalist people. And a simple google search for Hasan Sami Bolak should give you an answer about if he is a notable person or not. Pls dont let people achieve their politic goals via wikipedia. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close - "Pls dont let people achieve their politic goals via wikipedia." Yes, you are misusing this discussion thread to wrongfully try to achieve your political goal by making sensational allegations against living people in violation of WP:BLP and not addressing Wikipedia's content inclusion standards. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Wikipedia is not for advocacy, even if you are completely right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm unconvinced by the nominator here that the AfD wasn't properly decided. It seems a fair discussion occurred at the AfD. --Bsherr (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The cogent arguments advanced by nominator, including a source-by-source analysis, as well as the preponderance of policy-based deletion arguments, make this a correct close. Cunard (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.