Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehmet Murat İldan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Bucketsofg 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Mehmet Murat İldan

Mehmet Murat İldan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

[edit] Delete

  • This article and all the articles on his books are a part of an aggressive self (?)-pr covering a growing number of wp editions; whilst he has little notability in english and even less in all the other languages. Note also the previous intro statement "Following his epistolary novel, The First Sorrows of Young Werther, he is regarded as a romantic writer", when the book in question is due to be published in february this year (now corected to march). When the article also stated that this unpublished Young Werther is his magnum opus, we an easily assume that this author not notable, yet.

Even though an anonymous newbee User:Melanicool (contrib) has corrected this, the most obvious errors in the biography, this is still selfbiograhy, vanity and spamming. It remains to be explained why he (or his advocates) wishes to make the impression that all of his books have an english title, as if they have been translated. And it is still a fact the he (or his advocates) is abusing wikipedia worldwide (or, actually, languagewide) severly in order to self promote beyond notability.

Please also note that all his alleged "books" have their own articles; though several of his listed plays (such as Journey to God, Alchemist's Wife, Goddesses also Die and Master Moliere is Marrying etc) has no information about publishing or stage performances; they are merely manuscripts. Orland 09:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete the article, and speedy delete for all the plays and books articles that he also created here. None of them has been published with more than 3 000 copies, and some are still to be published... No sources except himself or the editor. He might be close from matching the criteria, but his creation of articles on himself on 30 different WP (half have already deleted or started a deletion procedure) is an incredible attempt to use the limited resources of WP for a worldwide self promotion. A violation of WP's principles that are the reason for my vote. Clem23 10:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - there is odd smell coming from this writer. Better to wait and see if he actually is what he claim is. --Finn Bjorklid 18:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Clem23's first intervention, becoming strong delete after reading the very dubious interventions in favour of keeping. --Goochelaar 18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete vast campaign of self promotion. --Vlad|-> 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Kjetil_r 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I wanted to give this a chance. Sites like google have limited effectiveness in searching for people who only operate abroad. But its hard to see how the case for notability has been made. I don't know how reliable the NewAbsinthe link is, but if there were more like it, I guess I could give this a pass. One of the proponents seems to think that merely publishing a book makes one notable and lists sites that sell his books. That is not the case. In other cases, proponents have described him as an emerging writer. Perhaps he can wait until he has emerged? Right now the massive sock operation leaves a bad aftertaste.Montco 03:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If I'm the proponent cited as saying that a published book makes one notable (there's another one who does more, but I was the first one), I feel I should clarify my position. I'd misread the nomination as suggesting that the books were unpublished, rather than the plays, about which I can also find nothing online. Obviously if a book is available online, it's been published. That said, as I understand the nomination now I see that the mere existence of the books wasn't really in question - and neither does it automatically confer notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems as an obvious case of using Wikipedia for commercial reasons; what did our new attorney say about such "articles"? Ulflarsen 07:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems to me as being a part of a wery cheap ad-campaign. Cheap moneywise, that is. Is Wikipedia supposed to sponsor him in all languages? Noorse 08:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete the article, and speedy delete for all the plays and books articles that he also created here. Self promotion --Dalgspleh 09:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with Thermite Does not meet WP:BIO. The first page of Google results is self-promotion or otherwise trivial articles. As per Clem23, even if he were in that list it would count for nothing, being the equivalent of a directory listing if it has 10k entries. Does not meet WP:V - can't find any English primary sources...in fact, it's quite hard to find anything in the mess of GoogleSpam that now comes up when you run a search!! Given the socks, I think letting this article remain would encourage similar WikiSpamming, which would be a very BadTM thing.--inksT 10:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Tuohirulla puhu 11:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per Clem23- Wikipedia is not a commercial website. Surena 14:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete the author has not only vandalized en.wikipedia and other languages, he has also hijacked the effort to delete this vanity article by sockpuppetry. --Clouseth 15:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete for all ancillary articles on plays and books. For the BIO: Delete or, at the very least, rewrite by someone who isn't directly related to the author by virtue of being...the author. There may be a case for inclusion on local site, as there is a review of one book on the Turkish tourism board website here, but half a thousand words of ego-massage it is not. As for little sock-puppet friends, just having written all these plays and books is not really the issue: I'd like a little more evidence of someone having ever read them. Scandrett 17:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, there are five reviews of his works if you search the name through this search page [1]. --Ekeb 18:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    A 'review', as you define it, is essentially nothing but a de facto admission of a work's existence. A review of 'Animal Farm' saying: "I can confirm this book is real; is made primarily of paper; was written by a man originally called Eric and is mostly about pigs" would not have gained Orwell an admission, and the reviews you source review nothing but the size of the book. Useful only if you're looking to buy a paperweight or a draft excluder. I still say weak keep on the Author page (and not the individual play/novel pages) provided there's an agricultural scale cull of the pooterism & puffery.Scandrett 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the full text of the "reviews" look like this:
Title: The Beggar’s Prophecy (Dilencinin Kehaneti)
Author (Editor, Trans., etc.): Mehmet Murat İLDAN
Genre: Two-act play
Edition: First printing
Year of Publication : 2001
Dewey Decimal No: 812,42A 'reviewa
Number of Pages: 54 + vii
Size: 20 cm.
Publication No: 2644
Name of Series: Works on Art-Drama Series
Series No: 338-203
ISBN: 975-17-2629-8
Copies Printed : 4,000
Price: 800,000 TL
Description: Mehmet Murat ildan’s play about a beggar and a lady in Paris.
I don't know what other people think, but to me that is NOT a review, that is a directory/index listing. It is not an in-depth, non-trivial article. This is an example of a real, in-depth, review. Even if it were, one could argue that the Turkish Ministry of Culture is not the most independent of reviewers. Note also that WP:BIO suggests that simply publishing is not sufficient, the author must have also received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. Perhaps if more time was spent improving the plays instead of WikiSpamming...--inksT 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let's not encourage people to write articles on themselves. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Self-promoting spammer. -- Yekrats 12:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This writer does not exist. He has not published any books at all. he is fiction. I comment to delete him. it is obvious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.122.73.12 (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
    • In Latin Wikipedia: "Calling it a self-promotion is curious. Nobody can know whether Mehmet knows about this case at all, although someone claimed the opposite. Ok, the promotion was bad, but the reaction smells bad as well." --Sun-o-man 18:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's not a matter of Turkey. This guy would be from Costa-Rica, Slovenia or New Zealand it would exactly be the same. It's a huge spamming abuse on over 30 different wikipedias, of a very unfamous writer, totally unknown in Turkey according to the Turks themselves. And the community reacts against that, which is quite sound and normal I believe. VaclavSmar 07:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete vanity Prittglue 11:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable --Pancasila 14:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Clem23 --Epaphroditus Ph. M. 18:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete spam --Orang gila 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  • Weak keep, although I'll admit to not quite following what's going on here. A brief Google using the Turkish dotted-I spelling throws up this site, which seems to verify the existence of "Roses under Paris" ("Paris'in Altındaki Güller", I believe, although my Turkish is pretty bad) and probably others as well, so he seems to have published something at least. Whether or not this is a vanity press is something I can't comment on, since it requires more language ability than I have. The fact that the article has claimed that an unpublished book is his magnum opus is neither here nor there, since it's a content issue which is curable by editing rather than deletion. In terms of the English titles, I'm not sure what the normal policy is regarding books with foreign language titles, although I'd point to this tome as evidence that perhaps it's legitimate to keep the titles as is, as long as the books have been published. On the surface, though, he seems to qualify as notable enough in Turkey, which I'd say makes him sufficiently notable here as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the article,When we check the page http://www.essex.ac.uk/alumni/pubs/nineties.htm, we can see that the author has Master and Doctorate degrees in Economics from the University of Essex. Therefore, in the infobox, it is fair to write "Economist" as one of his occupations along with novelist and playwright... So I am not agree with the user Melanicool to remove the "economist" label. That info was correct. If you also see the page http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=113181, the page rank on the right, it is fair to say that author has certain notability. Also, as we all know that PEN Clubs are important and serious literary organisations. In Turkish PEN's official web site, http://www.pen-tr.org/en/writes.asp?catid=1&name=2&id=56, we see author's some works published expilicitly in English. I believe this gives us some opinion that though he is an emerging writer, he has already some notability. I know from a friend living in the USA that author's novel Roses Underneath Paris can be found in certain bookshops in New York. The novel is not in English, it seems to be a great paradox, but it is not, because the book is read by the Turkish community living in the USA. Same applies to London or Münich as well. So I believe we must be fair on judging about the notabilty... We should also bear in mind that, checking his life story, author has lived about 9 years in England and he writes books where the events pass in England. So he is pro-England or England-lover writer as well... even only for this reason, I believe that an article about him deserves to be kept, improved and enriched... 25 january 2007.
Vote note signed but done by IP 85.106.155.214. A IP in Ankara, Turkey, the same type of IP that created this article on 31 different WP on a timespan of 1 month and a half. And sometime uses the following usernames: Ademusset or Marivaux on Fr, Cicero on WP in Latin, Carlogoldoni in Italian, Lopedevaga in Spanish, and Muratildan in Turkish. Vanity of one single person that has never sold more than 3 000 copies of one of his books. de:, pl:, sv:, it:, id: and others have used speedy deletion, fr:, es: are using articles for deletion procedure shifting towards deletion. Clem23 13:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
This account is likely to be a sock-puppet. Clem23 11:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the article, from google search it is obvious that he is a known writer. My vote is to keep. Alpacin. 27 January 2007
    • Hmmm. Two absolutely fresh users, who has only written in this debate!? This looks like Sock puppetry to me. --Orland 15:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • 3, you forgot to count the IP that has also expressed a keep vote. Clem23 15:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, certainly notable in Turkey, the question is if it isn't a case for Turkish Wikipedia ... as for will be published soon in England: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we have things that happened and that are verifiable in an Encyclopedia Alf photoman 15:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the article, every writer has her or his advocates, that is quite normal. I have read some parts of author's play Master William Shakespeare, which is available in http://www.pen-tr.org/en/writes.asp?catid=1&name=2&id=56. He seems to be a serious and good writer. What use to delete the article about him which has obviously correct information? I believe that English wikipedia users can and should benefit from the information and literary material given in the article. We must also keep in mind the considerable effort made to create this article. I suggest we respect the effort and the work. So my vote is definitely to keep the article... deleting is an easy way, we should be helpers not the terminators.good day.Jabbar. 27 January 2007, 18.07
not signed by Sockpuppet n°4, you could also use the 4 different names that you used to write the article, I'm waiting for their vote. Clem23 16:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you elaborate on this? --Goochelaar 23:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I shall elaborate a bit myself. First of all, the person which is object of the article we are discussing shares 8 or 9 of the 10 features attributed to the average Wikipedian. Secondly, countering systemic bias means countering the tendency to consider a major Turkish (or Italian, or Somali, or...) writer de facto less important than a minor English-speaking one, not allowing a minor one (independently from his nationality) to advertise freely, should this be the case here. --Goochelaar 23:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A published author, notable in his own language group at least. Spam is annoying but does not make him insignificant. User:Dimadick
    He is so notable that he isn't even listed in the turkish ministry of culture's turkish authors encyclopedia, that contains hundreds of names [2] Clem23 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    If you read the preface about that website, you will notice that the web version has only 2.023 the most notable of about 10.000 Turkish authors which are listed in the printed version [3]. --Ekeb 09:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for correcting, so I was saying that he's not among the 2 023 most famous turkish writers, and that we do not know if he is among the 10 000. But as for notability it's still a very important information. Clem23 11:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, self-promotion or non-notability outside of origin country have never been reasons to delete in English Wikipedia. --Tbonefin 07:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There are considerably less notable bios in the English Wikipedia. Seems to meet our marginal bar for significance. Huangdi 08:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • FYI. I have also nominated for deletion 10 articles on mostly unpublished and unstaged plays by Ildan; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Admirer of Machiavelli. Quoting a visitor on my norwegian talk page: "this guy launched one of the most incredible spam event that I've ever seen on WP" --Orland 08:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Week Keep, It needs work on establishing the significance. Current form of the page does not have significant info, lets say textual depth. OttomanReference 23:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Further info. Please also note that User:Saposcat, who must be recognized for some insight in turkish literature removed this edit by the most frequent Ildan-agitator User:Tagorgora, when Tagorgora tried to edit Ildan into the article Turkish literature. --Orland 11:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - As a tr.wp admin and probably the first reader of the WP article on him, I would like to provide you guys some information about this issue. First of all, it is Mehmet Murat İldan himself, who has been writing all these articles. So it's an autobiography. I personally don't see WP:AUTO as a reason to delete an article, as long as the person in question is notable. In that case i think he is, even though i've never heard of him in my life before his Wikiactivity. He is definitely not famous in Turkey, that i can assure you. But as an author of several books, i personally would consider him as notable. He has several awards, books published by Ministry of Culture etc. He clearly speaks very highly of himself and all his contributions are about himself, but my tendency to stay neutral no matter what pushes me to accept this person as notable. The article can be neutralized or stubbed.--Vito Genovese 11:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see why to delete this article... Honestly, there is some ongoing prejudice about Turkish articles in wikipedia, and I highly disapprove of this! This guy has bbooks published. see above links, I checked them. So just because english speakers don't read him it means he doesn't exist as a writer or what? This is an english language encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia of English things... he has several published books. turkish national libraries list him. what else do you need? --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 15:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If you're Turkish, would you want your country to be represented by this self-promoting, non-notable, hack of a writer or by Orhan Pamuk, whose reputation is not in any doubt and would not resort to such low actions to sell a few more of his books? By voting to delete this article, you are voting to protect the good name of Turkey and Turkish writers. --Pancasila 14:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Because I smell very bad racist lynching operation here! Turkey's most prestigous writers are those of the Turkish PEN Club members; Orhan Pamuk is also a member... Here is a definite proof that Mehmet Murat İldan is a Turkish writer and a member of the most prestiguous literary club in Turkey. Check this web page: Turkish PEN Club Members The article is not Self promoting, it is INFORMATION PROMOTING which is the most important aim of Wikipedia... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.122.73.42 (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Strong KeepAny person who has published 10 books will be considered notable enough in any country. Check the Kurdish page [Mehmet Murat İldan] His books have not been translated into Kurdish, but the information on the writer exists in Kurdish. What is the purpose of the Wikipedia, if not to provide information. Can anyone disprove the information given in the article? All you "no" guys just talk. His books are not in Kurdish language. So what profit he can gain from this? Obviously, this article and the brother articles aim is to provide info, nothing but info about the writer. If you need an information about Turkish playwrights, where an earth are you going to look at? Don't you see that Wikipedia is a wonderful opportunity to get information? Will the writer go to a publishing House in Portugal and say that "Look, I have an article in wikipedia, publish my works!" It is absolutely funny!!!!!! There is obviously unjustified no-proof attack on the article. I protest this strongly.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.122.73.31 (talk • contribs).
  • Strong Keep What's with all the deletes here? Yes, the page may be a so called "vanity" page now. It may right now be self promotion. But if George W Bush wrote his own Wiki-page, would you guys still delete it? He is notable in Turkey. Just because you have not heard of him here does not mean that he is not notable somewhere else in the world. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable in Turkey--Boookabooo 10:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This vote might be sock puppetry. If I counted right, this is the 9th sockpuppet or suspected sockpuppet of Mehmet Murat Ildan (not all of them voted though, a few just tried to fix the article to try desperately to save it) Clem23 11:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Linguicism again. Several Turkish-speaking Wikipedians (including one who has my utmost trust in anything Turkey-related) have attested this author is notable. – Alensha talk 23:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

  • Supplying a perspective: A biography of modern turkish national author Yaşar Kemal excists in ca 10 wp languages. This article was spread into ca 30 languages. This is obviously unproportional, and suggests an agenda of spamming beyond significance. --Orland 13:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
There is also a relevant comparison with Orhan Pamuk, the recent nobel prize winner. In many small WP they are the only 2 authors listed in the turkish writers category (ie in finnish) Clem23 13:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong what the heck. The same article is being considered for deletion in multiple Wikipedias all of sudden? first deletion proposal I've seen in Finnish Wikipedia that isn't in Finnish, for example. Can anyone tell me, admittedly, a slow-witted fellow, what the heck is going on? An craftily orchestrated international deletion debate, or business as usual? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • An administrator at the Norwegian (bokmål) Wikipedia noticed the concerted effort of spreading this biographical article to a great number of Wikipedias, and believing the effort to be self-promotion from an artist who probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability in any language made an extra effort of countering the apparent spam in like fashion. I believe that is more or less the core of this issue. __meco 18:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • After considering the case, it does appear to be a case of a) an unprecedentedly elaborate VSCA attack and b) an equally elaborate and rather unprecedented response to it by AfDing the articles everywhere. So, right now, I'd say Weak Delete unless there's definite proof that these books are indeed published or something along those lines. If this is indeed a case of vanispam, the author must be strongly cautioned to not touch the article too much further, but if the article subject's merits are okay, then there's really no reason to delete the article anyway. User conduct is not grounds for article deletion. So, basically, improve or let it go. I do have to say that if this article creation gimmick is really as elaborate as it seems like at this point, this is most frown-worthy. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
        • The books seem to have been published, and nobody's flagged anything about a vanity press/print on demand outfit being involved, so that particular obstacle looks cleared. BigHaz -
          • Finnish vote seems to be for keep 26/10 at the moment. --Sun-o-man 18:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong what the heck. For some reasons why to keep this article, see the (English) discussion in the Latin Wikipedia. --Roland2 18:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Would wwwwolf and Roland2 clarify whether their use of what the heck is meant to indicate a comment or a vote?--inksT 19:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
A comment. --Roland2 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
A comment. "Strong" as in "I'd really like to know", "what the heck" as in "what's going on?" =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional Comments Hm. Following the comment by BigHaz that the books seemed to have been published, I have tried to find listings for the ISBN 975-17-2629-8 for "The Beggar’s Prophecy (Dilencinin Kehaneti)" which is supposed to have had a 4k print run in 2001 - no records [4], [5]. Have also tried the University Library catalogues of several Turkish Universities, no hits. [6], [7]. So I tried the listed ISBN for Sisam Adası Aşıkları - Lovers of Samos Island, 2006 and got nothing again. [8]. No hits even for the authors name. [9], [10]. These were the only ones I could find:[11]. In contrast, I can pick up any book off a pile here at the University of Otago library, and find multiple listings. For example "Renata's Journey", (1994), a historical narrative of a particular expedition in 1843/44 by Maori and Pakeha, of academic interest only, and probably had a small print run. ISBN 0908812361, and look, a listing.[12].--inksT 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll refer once again to this site, which seems (although I can't be totally sure) to allow people to purchase two of his books and what looks to be an anthology of somethingoranother in which he is included - all in the original Turkish, however. There mightn't be an ISBN attached, but the fact that his work is available for purchase seems to say that he is published. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am sincerely hoping that the following library and book web site pages will persuade you that these books exist:

Istanbul Technical University Library Antiquary Arago's Diary Novel Istanbul Bilgi University Library Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Play Turkish Ministry of Culture Library - Galileo Galilei Play Turkish Ministry of Culture Library William Shakespeare Play Turkish Ministry of Culture Library Antiquary Arago's Diary Novel Turkish Books Site Sisam Adası Aşıkları - Lovers of Samos Island Ormanın Hayaletleri - Ghosts of Forest Turkish Books Site Antikacı Arago'nun Günlüğü - Antiquary Arago's Diary Ilknokta Book Web Site Antikacı Arago'nun Günlüğü - Antiquary Arago's Diary TNN Bookstore Turkish Ministry of Culture Library Dilencinin Kehaneti - Beggar's Prophecy William Shakespeare Play Advertisement in Milliyet Newspaper I can give you 100 more web sites that one find all the books mentioned in the article. Please also note that 4000 copy for a theatre play in Turkey is realy a very very big printing number. Dilencinin Kehaneti-Beggar's Prophecy printed in 2001 and sold out compeletly in 2002. Now it is a rare book which can be found only in seller of secondhand books... We give big importance to Wikipedia and all we want is to be here, to let others know about the Contemporary Turkish Literature and share with you... yours sincerely... Tagorgora. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.226.141.13 (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

  • I would like to give additional information about the library records as a proof of the books existence. Here is the National Library records.

National Library of Turkey Database You can see that writer's birthday info is wrong. It should be 1965. But in the government record it is written as 1956. Please also check the spelling Ormanýnýn hayaletleri (Ghost's of Forest) The correct spelling should be Ormanın Hayaletleri. Thus, when you search the books in the google or in other search engines or even in databases, because of the wrong records, spelling mistakes it is not always easy to find a book in a quick search. National Library of Turkey Database in Ankara is the largest database. Please check the following page: National Library of Turkey Database You will see only 6 books of the author. But he has more than 10 books published. We don't see them in the database, because databases are unfortunatley not updated and there exists several spelling mistakes... Anyway, this is my final comment on this issue. You can delete or keep the article, it is your decision. I hope that people from different countries will create different articles on the Contemporary Turkish Literature and contemporary Turkish Writers so that literature world can be enriched further. Yours sincerely... Tagorgora. Vox populi vox Dei. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.231.213.149 (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

  • Comment I wonder if it is a coincidence that the last two, very indignant, remarks come from unregistered, unsigning editors with very similar IPs: in one case this is the unique contribution to Wikipedia, in the other there is also a minor editing to the İldan article. I won't comment about the racism accusations. --Goochelaar 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Are we deleting this article because it is self promotion or because he's not notable? I mean, if the article was created by an established user, would you want it to be deleted? If an established user re-creates the article two months after the closure of this Afd, would the article get deleted and why? (WP:CSD A7?) What i don't understand is, why would self promotion be a reason to delete an article. Why don't we focus on notability and just neutralize the article? Does notability refer to how famous the person in question is or does it refer to the work he/she has done to deserve an article? I simply don't understand why we keep an article about Prince Harry's girlfriend and delete this one (or recreations in the future)? Not that i support this guy just because he's from Turkey (i got so close to blocking him on tr.wp), but i don't see any reason to relinquish information, just because it's been used for self promotion. --Vito Genovese 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Things are actually getting muddled by several non-pertinent factors: the suspect of self-promotion, the sudden appearance of the articles in several wikipedias, the comments by possible sockpuppets, the accusations of racism... All of which heats the debate and distracts from the actual issues of possible non-notability and possible lack of reliable sources. Nevertheless, some good points have been made. For instance, somebody pointed out the "Encyclopedia of Turkish Authors" [13] of the Turkish Ministry of Culture, in which İldan does not appear. It allegedly includes the 2023 "owners of the most important works in Turkish language". So it appears that İldan is, at best, the 2024th most notable Turkish writer, which does not appear very notable among Turkish writers (we are not even thinking of comparing him with writers in other languages). This is just to exemplify some of the points made about his notability. Then again, these points must carefully be found amid other less relevant arguments. --Goochelaar 20:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you are talking about this page. Turkish Authors I have just made a quick look at it. Özen Yula is not in the list, but Ahmet Önel is in the list. Özen Yula is a famous Playwright in İstanbul... I am saying to you that that list is definitely not correct, not complete, politically biased, since Fethullah Gülen's name is there!... Also it is not the list of the Famous Authors, but it is the list of Turkish Authors. Do you also know that Ministry of Culture is no longer printing theatre plays? Why? because the government does not like theatre!.. Oh, dear friend there are millions of things you don't know about Turkey, about what is going on in Turkey... any way, I will sleep now! But before sleep I will give you one more name, probably you may know him İsmail Cem, former Minister, died few days ago. he has many books, but he is not in the list! . He is not writing literary books, rather political books. But the list above already a mixed list. Good day to you... Yours sincerely... Tagorgora
  • COMMENT - I have read some of the discussions above. First of all, there exists neither racism nor prejudice against the Turks or what so ever. I believe there is confusion here. If you see the notability criteria for people in the following page, [notability], things will be clearer. It says that “The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person” From the above web sites we can see that he has at least 10 books published. He has published about Galileo Galilei, [Galileo Galilei] , since Bertolt Brecht this is the second play ever written on Galileo’s life. Can we call this a trivial publication? There exists no play on William Shakespeare’s life. See this page, [Master William Shakespeare], are we going to call this publication trivial and rubbish? Has anybody tried to read the play? Why not? Do you think that high literature is something garbage? Please see the page, [Gandhi], this is the only comprehensive Gandhi play in the world, no one can assert othervise; are we going to say that this Gandhi play is trivial publication? Another criteria says “Published authors who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.” Büyünün Gözleri (Eyes of Magic) Play, [Eyes of Magic], obtained a National award in Istanbul. Do you think that it is easy to get a national award where hundreds of participants enter the competition? Is it something trivial? Now please see this page, [Sabahattin Eyuboğlu]. You will probably say who the hell this Sabahattin Eyuboğlu is. He is a very important Turkish writer, and when I read the artcile I have seen nothing about Shakespeare and I added that info, added Shakespeare link as well. He has translated Macbeth, Timon of Athens, Hamlet, Julius Caesar, most wonderful translations… We have loved Shakespeare through his incredibly beautiful translations. Now, if you look at his article, a very short article, so he means an unimportant writer? We can not get anything from the length of the article. It is not the length but the quality matters. Unfortunately we don’t have much time. We have works to do. There are hundreds of Turkish related articles to be improved. There are also so many misonformation as well. Now see this page, [Mehmet Murat ildan] in Magyar language. It is clear that a Magyar guy translated this page. It probably says Murat ildan is a Turkish writer. And there is also Bibliografi. Where is the spam here? Is the play Master William Shakespeare spam? what is the spam here? I see only a very limited info on the writer. Are we going to call this a spam, a garbage? What is your knowledge about literature? Have you ever tried to read the writers one of the plays in English, available in different sites. See the page [Mehmet Murat İldan] in Latin language page. Do you call this a spam? It says Murat İldan is a Turkish writer. Galileo text is given there. So is it the play spam, or rubbish? Do you think that it is easy to be a writer in Turkey. Burhan Günel is a famous (and notable) writer in Turkey. His story books are printed in 2000 copies. May be you find it funny? Have you ever heard Burhan Günel? No! check the google now, you will see only 992! he is 60 years old. Now see this Turkish short CV: Ödülleri: Kültür Bakanlığı Çocuk Öyküleri Başarı

Ödülü (1979), Türk Dil Kurumu Ödülü (1981), Mehmet Ali Yalçın Roman Ödülü (1981 ve 1982), Nevzat Üstün Öykü Birinci Başarı Ödülü (1983), Ömer Seyfettin Öykü Ödülü (1994), Yunus Nadi Roman Ödülü (1997), Yunus Nadi Öykü Ödülü (2000). He has at least 6 very important Literary Awards! But according to google he is 992! There are lots of important Turkish writers that even most Turkish people don't know because they are not advertised, because big publishing houses are supporting many trivial, magazinal type books and writers. I am avery disappointed and sad about the above discussions!.. They mentioned above writers dictionary. They are all biased dictionaries. There is another dictionary where 4000 writer names exist. We don't have 4000 writers, I am talking about literature! Turkish Playwrights number is not more than 100! You can check from the playwrights association in ıstanbul by sending them an e-mail. What about living novelists? May be 200, but not more!.. Being famous is something to do with advertisement, somethimg to do with money, not with quality. Not every good writer has money, or dark powers for advertisements... What is the conclusion? The writer in question is notable but not famous in Turkey! Who cares about being famous? are we going to be interested in the works or whether the person in question is famous? Ask 1000 people in the streets of Turkey, They will not know about Sabahattin Eyuboğlu... Some says His Hamlet is even better than the original language, it so poetical... goodnight. Tagorgora.

  • Comment "Now see this page, [Mehmet Murat ildan] in Magyar language [Mehmet Murat ildan]. It is clear that a Magyar guy translated this page. It probably says Murat ildan is a Turkish writer" [User: Tagorgora] Now my Magyar may be a little rusty, but as someone with a little Latin left over from school I can assure you that while the latin page [Mehmet Murat İldan] does, sort of, say Ildan is a Turkish writer, it does it in a way that suspiciously reeks of someone running it through a Latin babelfish, since anyone with a little Latin left would have left the verb 'est', at the end of the sentence & I get the same feeling about the other languages that Ildan (sorry, Ildan's 'biographer') is posting to. I know this is nitpicking, but the whole thing just stinks to high heaven of a concerted, and conceited, attempt to carpet bomb every wiki in existence into submission. First of all I thought this was just simple vanity, more and more I'm starting to think hoax. Surely no-one could be so self-regarding to need about 15 sock-puppets and daily postings on AfD just to prop up their insecurity? Also, accusations of racism are a very cheap shot & need to be nipped in the bud right away.Scandrett 00:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    Side note: The Latin is ok, see la:Vicipaedia:A est B. ;-) --Roland2 18:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have just added World Short Story Day article in the Wikipedia which was proposed by the Turkish Authors Association (TAA) in Ankara. About the article on Mehmet Murat İldan, I would like to give a brief info on him which is that the author is a member of TAA, Turkish Authors Association in Ankara. His name is written as Mehmet M. Ildan in the list. Membership number is 704. The association is a liberal sided organisation, some of his members prisioned in the past years. Another info that I know about the writer is that one of his plays, Tanrı'ya Yolculuk, Journey to God banned in Istanbul on the grounds that society is not ready for this play. The play considers the science as the sole Prophet. It is anti-religuous but pro-God play. In his theatre articles, this particular one Thoughts on the banns in theatre writer explains his opinions on such matters. but I don't know whether an english version of the article can be found on the web. I just wanted to give the wikipedia community these info. as far as notabilty, he is surely notable. this particular web site Tiyatrom is the most visited web site (among the theatre web sites) in Turkey. Please ellaborate on my new article World Short Story Day as well. Take care. Hande, 31 jan 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HandeKurtulus (talk • contribs) 12:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
  • This would be the seventh Sock puppet to defend Ildan. --Orland 17:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment reverted to editions turkish title following user Orland's contributions.
  • Comment: For god's sake, what's this longish debate about someone who has 10 books published? Isn't that enough criteria for notability? Who cares about the writer of the article? even if he wrte it himself... it doesn't say he's the bigest turkish writer - to have POV in it. It says he has X number of books published. So why are we still debating about NOTABILITY? I speak turkish and read the turkish sources. He exists. he has those books published, he is a member of the PEN club. what else do you need for notability? I do say there IS racim against Turkish articles going on in enwiki, and quite frankly I don't really know why. what's your problem with turkish literature? that you can't read it? that's no excuse for deleting something, just because you can't read it. 100 million speakers of the Turkish language CAN. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I added the ecessary references to the page, about the biography elements, about the award winning play (did find sources about it) and about the books, found his bio and bibliography at the website of the publisher of three of his books, Truva Yayinlari. Link also added at the site. Hope this is enough proof of notabilty for everyone. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 21:11, 2 February 2007 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Mehmet_Murat_%C4%B0ldan_1737.html"