Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demet Muftuoglu

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. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 22:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demet Muftuoglu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is terribly written and the subject is not notable. There are several issues with this article the greatest of which is that it lacks any citation whatsoever (this is a big issue when dealing with a BLP). Additionally, (before I removed it) there was a giant list of spam links which made the piece look almost entirely promotional. —Frosty ☃ 04:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be re written. Not up to wikipedia's standards.AERATBAG — Preceding unsigned comment added by AERATBAG (talk • contribs) 04:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is poorly written and lacks citations, but I found a ton of hits in a Google search. Here are some from the first page of search results... 1, 2, 3, 4. Nor did I do any searching in Turkish. This is just the English. I have a high degree of confidence that the subject passes WP:BASIC and arguably WP:CREATIVE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE completely irrelevant and not notable and a terrible piece of self promotional advertisement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.228.31 (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I expect at least some attempt to be made to cite information to a reliable source. This could be reverted to a draft but it does not meet quality standards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been stubbed, removing the promotional aspects and is more than adequately sourced to meet WP:BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT It should be noted that Wikipedia cleary says 'trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.228.31 (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Did you actually bother to look at the sources? If the sources currently cited are trivial, we might just as well hang it up. There isn't much that would pass GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Of note is that the article has been stubbified, which removed promotional aspects of the content therein.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rewritten stub's sources constitute significant coverage satisfying WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, based on the US news sources with her as the subject, though they don't impart a lot of info about her. There's likely to be sources in Turkish media too, but Turkish is a bit impenetrable to me! Sionk (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some more boographical info from the existing Turkish news source, which seems to be substantially about her. Sionk (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HEY. CutestPenguin ^discuss 17:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and fluff. Advertising. If we keep, this will set precedent for anybody working as a consultant to have a page dedicated to them. 64.17.247.66 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Wikipedia must not become an advertising bible for fashion event publicists to promote their services. She seems like an event organizer. No sign of any serious contribution to Art. No art collection. And has not done any important or notable cultural work. 24.97.203.163 (talk)

Note to reviewing admin I am noticing a pattern of POV and borderline disruptive editing going on with the article followed by Delete !votes posted here by IPs. The comments attending the delete votes also demonstrate a lack of understanding of, or disregard for, the basic notability guidelines including GNG and BASIC. I am not sure who is behind it but there appears to be a concerted effort to get this article deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject not notable enough to have a page dedicated to her here. 64.134.100.90 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is starting to smell like a locker room. The socks seem to be all over. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both the IP64's seem to stem from the same location and internet provider, indicating they are likely to be the same person !voting twice. Sionk (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - only one of the sources (W, the "bible" of the fashion industry) currently cited in the article is a reliable source. The others (The Weekly Standard, blogs, social media) are not reliable, as they push opinion over fact, are edited anonymously, and/or are paid for. The Style piece found by User:Ad Orientem could be used to save this article. If we could find and add in even one more good source, this would make it over the notability line. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.