Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Şahin K

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, appears at least borderline notable; cleanup would be good. BLACKKITE 15:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Şahin K

Şahin K (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO for pornographic actors. No references to awards, mainstream media attention, or unique contributions - TheBilly^Talk 14:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Very strong keep. You should put a tag to re-edit the article and make a call for Turkish-speaking users to improve it. The present users in discussion cannot weigh the notability of this personality. The article may be in ill condition, which is a fact, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the subject matter is not notable. Behemoth (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Nevertheless, I don't smell a hint of common-sense here. Behemoth (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

DON'T VOTE TWICE. You're being extremely disruptive. Also, new text goes under old text. - TheBilly^Talk 12:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable actor. No reliable independent sources either. Egdirf (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as previous. Triwbe (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. He is at least as notable as dumbass American football players present in Wikipedia. He is an important actor in Turkey and will now begin a new phase of his career. Behemoth (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC) See the new additions to the article. Behemoth (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Please read the current references. Behemoth (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and Behemoth (talk) please reconsider your choice of language. -RiverHockey (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead, delete all articles that don't concern your great nation! Out English-language Wikipedia, in All-American Wikipedia. Behemoth (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Turn this reputable source called Wikipedia to a tabernacle of your sacred commercialism and vanity. Behemoth (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot about stubbornnes and ignorance. God bless America! Behemoth (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Don't even bother yourself for checking the references. I guess that's what you call NPOV "down" in the States. Behemoth (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• You are quite obtuse. I said please reconsider your choice of language because of this quote of yours, "He is at least as notable as dumbass American football players present in Wikipedia." Please refrain from further insults or you will be banned. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please avoid irrelevant politically-charged comments.

We can't check the sources because they're not in English. This is an English-language encyclopedia, and it's unreasonable to expect contributors to know all of the world's approximately 6,000 languages and be able to read absolutely anything presented. English is spoken in many countries throughout the world, in many forms. English is not exclusive to America, The UK, Canada, and Australia. If no reputable sources in english can be found, then it's doubtful that a person is important in the world in general - TheBilly^Talk 12:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in policy that says non-English Language sources are unacceptable. WP:V says "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality". This means that in this case, as no English language sources of equal quality have been found, Turkish ones can be used. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And indeed I didn't say they're unacceptable. You're arguing a point that nobody made. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to expect us to be able to read absolutely any source thrown out there, as Behemoth seems to think we should - TheBilly^Talk 15:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought that you were claiming that they couldn't be used to establish verifiability and notability, but I see now that you were just replying to Behemoth's rant. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Let's ignore the ranting and concentrate on whether the article conforms to policy and guidelines. References given establish that he, to quote WP:BIO's provisions for pornographic actors, "has been featured multiple times in mainstream media", and also confirm the awards. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2008 (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.