Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otisabi

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 of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Otisabi

Delete: Non-notable comic. Article claims he is "known for his self invented mock-past careers and lives". Indeed; within the article it claims he lives in Manhattan and also in Los Angeles. Yet, his profiles ([1],[2]) say he lives in Turkey. Claims to be working in the motion picture industry yet IMDB has no entry under either Otisabi or Yilmaz Aslantürk. There are also claims to being a top male model, top water polo player (google for "Yilmaz Aslantürk" and "water polo" returns nothing), and rich playboy. I was strongly leaning towards speedy deleting this as nn-bio, but given there have been a few people who have contribute to the article I thought I'd give it half a chance by cleaning it up a bit and putting it here on AfD. --Durin 14:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yılmaz Aslantürk (illustrator) and Otisabi (the cyber persona) are NOT the same person. Yılmaz Aslantürk, who resides in Turkey, created the Otisabi character for his Comic Strips. Otisabi the cyber personality liked that character and took its name as his handle/nickname. Also the claims of being a top model and water polo players are evidently NOT real but intended to be comical as made obvious by the following statement that clearly says "self invented". You might cross check with Eksi Sozluk (http://sozluk.sourtimes.org) for further verification.Otisabi

• Then please indicate some reason...any reason...why this person (you?) is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. As it is, the article clearly fails Articles (7) criteria and should be speedy deleted. If the article is just a joke, then it should be speedied immediately. --Durin 20:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, this person, (being me, but the article itself is not initially written by me or anyone I know of) is notable mainly for being one of the few internet persona's in Turkey that emerged as a nickname, gained popularity then made himself a career as a writer and journalist under the same nickname, announced specifically on the cover of a magazine (http://www.vatangazetesi.com.tr/boxer/index.asp). It's like Durin (you?) emerging from wikipedia as an administrator and be invited to write for a mainstream magazine, acknowledged outside of wikipedia but still under the same LOTR nickname? Would you think of yourself notable enough? I just find it humiliating to prove and justify my existence.

Personally, I do not defend that otisabi should be included (or for that matter excluded) for any reason. I just saw the previous flawed article edited that out, I will edit in the "excuse" to justify otisabi's presence, however I would still like you to be provide a justification that corresponds to the article itself a little bit more coherent than "the article clearly fails Articles (7)". How clearly does it fail? If you will, please clarify that so that I can edit it accordingly. Otherwise you may proceed with your speed obsessed deletion. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.184.71.11 (talk • contribs).

• If I were obsessed with speedy deleting articles, I would have deleted this article on sight. Instead, I took the time and effort to clean it up a bit and placed it for AfD where this discussion is now happening. Had I just speedied it, we would not even be having this conversation. Let's throw pillows, not knives, ok?
• As for it qualifying speedy deletion under A7; the article makes no assertion of notability of the individual that can be independently verified. I attempted to verify, and made an association of a name to the person that you hav indicated is inaccurate. As noted, claims of being a water polo scoring champ and etc. are fake. There's nothing in the article that we can verify to support notability. The link you have provided shows the word "Otisabi" on the page twice. Not knowing Turkish, I've no way of understanding the relevance. A journalist and/or writer is not notable enough because they are a journalist and/or writer. Has the person won awards? Published frequently? When and in what medium? There are journalists and writers at my local newspaper. None of them are remarkable in any respect. What makes "Otisabi" something encyclopedic? Perhaps it would be more appropriate to create this article on the Turkish Wikipedia? --Durin 20:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Addendum; I saw the edit summary saying the first paragraph shows why he's reputable. Sorry to disappoint, but I don't see why a person who spends time on the web and becomes a writer/journalist is therefore notable. --Durin 20:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Durin. Stifle 22:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

(editing in for the purposes of further clarification) Although I have mentioned the word "obsession" once in reference to your usage of the word "speedy", you kind of get a little too itchy about it (Maybe I should throw in a itching cream?). You, being the moderator with a topic under your name and "milestones of achievement" can and may by every right delete an article. It doesn't matter how fast you erase it. Giving a sense of urgency in a matter of quasi importance such as this one seems a bit sign of pointless self importance. Just so you know, this is just an article in question, it's not a "cut the red wire or the green wire in ten seconds" moment. Do we really need to throw in uncalled for adjectives? It's not important how fast it should be deleted but why it should be deleted. A little more coherence to the text itself would suffice. Next time let's throw meaningful references to the text rather than links to lengthy articles, mmmkay?

Now, as I said earlier I will not defend the necessity of the topic otisabi in wikipedia. It could have forever remained in its previous version (which somehow eluded your and other hall of fame moderators faster than bullet deletion skills. Maybe you should add these to your notable list of milestones as well.) I am not sure what would be the scope of notability and necessity in an ever growing English speaking world. Is it centered in English speaking world and their means of collecting information? If so wikipedia being one such medium would suffice to present what is notable in one country to the other. However, we're not really given anything specific, other than speed regarding a deletion. Oh and Thank you for editing the article, it wouldn't be what it was without you.

I must also point out some inconsistencies inherent to wikipedia's "notable person" criteria. You, Durin, for instance have a user article to your name. Even though you're just an editor who has just enough time (and perhaps, not enough life) to adorn your topic with milestones of quite puny achievements, you are somehow considered notable. However anyone with enough time can be a moderator in wikipedia, and have milestones of statistical achievements. Should any geek with a LOTR nickname be given space in an encyclopedia just because he/she has enough time to justify it? Of course you may say "but its a user page and everyone is entitled to one.". Sure, but it's not very easy to distinguish that at first glance. It is presented in the same format, and can easily serve as a vanity page if need be. Of course this is beside the main point.

The main point is what is the criteria for notability that is somewhat left undecided whether it relates to the culture, geography, language, etc. You say in your web page you want some verification of notability. Fair enough. But then again if you are unable to read the "verifications" due to your lack of language regarding the subject of verification which may be something other than English (and french) shouldn't you just leave the judgement to someone that might know Turkish? If you insist on verifications you first should be able to "see" them, right? Perhaps you should ask a comrade moderator who does rather than directing me to Turkish Wikipedia? Hmm? That didn't occur to you? No Turkish speaking mods in English wikipedia?

Other than that I do not see how you miss the point about the notability. Use your pace in thinking please, I will provide the pillows if you fall, do I not explicitly say that otisabi is notable because he started out as a cyber persona, gained fame, and eventually hired as a writer due to his fame. It's quite unlike the blokes in your local newspaper who probably gained fame in town gatherings, but then again how can you prove and distinguish one from the other?

Otisabi writes in a nation wide circulated magazine, and he did not apply for it, he is offered the place. If that is in par with guys being able to write in local newspapers, so be it. You might live in Times Square.

Has the person won awards? But Durin, doesn't that depend on the award itself? Suppose my friends decide to give me an award how would that qualify? Besides how would -you- know the difference given the fact that you are alien to Turkish and the cultural life in Turkey? Do every good writer in history won an award or another? What award did Kafka won? Was he published regularly when he was alive? No. However he was published after his death, but still it wasn't what made him notable. It was not through awards or being published regularly to fulfill a quantitative understanding that mattered, but his literature was studied. It was written about. Maybe that is something you should keep in your inventory of criteria.

Was otisabi considered worthy in that sense? Yes. I can provide you articles. But would you be able to tell anything from it? No, because you don't know Turkish. Oh but somehow you think you are -still- eligible.

Was he regularly published, article clearly says that he is being published, and he is a publisher as well (and again nationwide, unlike your local paper friends). But there's a thing called vanity press, and regular publishing does not make you notable. That is unless you think there's relation between money and notability other than the "note" in "banknote".

Maybe Durin, just maybe, you should have said: is he translated into English so that he is notable to be published in English Wikipedia, then I would understand. Then you would have a point, then I would rest my case. Then I could have asked the initial question where is the center of wikipedia? Does it exclude Internet because of its insignificance as a source of being notable? If it does doesn't it also make itself not so notable since it is Internet based?

However, that I did not see. And allow me to be honest when I say that I find you quite naive and Pavlovian after milestones of achievements. Other than applying ready made bio templates you should be more attentive to the articles you have power upon. You should ask the questions that refer to specific points in a copy paste friendly environment, you should be able to provide a rule that directly explains the situation, rather than giving out general guidelines.

So next time please do not offer faux apologies by saying " Sorry to disappoint, but I don't see why a person who spends time on the web and becomes a writer/journalist is therefore notable." I am not disappointed by not being able to make it in wikipedia. I am disappointed that even wikipedia is run by bureaucrats who throw in a little bit of obscurity can rule and survive.

So here's what you could have asked: "Is he notable because he one day decided to be a nationwide publicized writer journalist, or was he asked/urged to be one because of his fame in the internet?" But that requires a sharp knife that wasn't in the drawer in the first place doesn't it?

Sorry to provide you one by throwing to your direction. If that was too sharp for you, here, a pillow, rest your weary head after a day of accomplishment.

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.