Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melih Abdulhayoglu

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 Redirect to Comodo. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melih Abdulhayoglu

Melih Abdulhayoglu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Here's a person on the razor's edge of WP pro-forma notability: a consistent spokesperson for an Internet company that gets a press mention maybe twice a year. WP has a page for the company, Comodo. Abdulhayoglu is notable for nothing else other than his founding of the company. His page was created by User:Lakshmin, which is likely Lakshmi Dinamoni, a Comodo employee. I spent a bit of time stripping out the POV and puff language from the article, which is now being reverted back in a couple times a week by an anonymous SPA account. WP should cover Abdulhayoglu on the Comodo article; it needn't host an executive bio for him as well. Oh, no references, either. --- tqbf 14:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Redirect to the Comodo article, unless Mr. Abdulhayoglu has some other claim to notability, for instance if he disappears when you say his name backwards. --Lockley (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect Ulgoyahludba. Nope, nothing happ
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep – There does seem to be notable coverage as shown here, [1]. In addition, multiple reliable and verifiable coverage on Google, [2], Google News, [3]and finally Google Scholar, [4] which makes for a pretty impressive and easily made Keep decision. Shoessss |  Chat  15:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment --- suggest you re-check your references:
  1. The MSNBC story carries a photo of Melih, but his name appears in the article only once. The article does include significant coverage of Melih's company, Comodo; I am not nominating Comodo for deletion.
  2. The Google search provides no additional reliable sources writing about Melih. It does capture all of Comodo's press releases (not valid sources) and several blog op-eds. Predictably, the #1 hit for Melih in Google is WP.
  3. The news search includes no articles written about Melih; it does include several written about his company, which already has a WP article. I am not nominating Comodo for deletion --- just a poorly referenced article about an individual executive of the company, written and edited by an employee of the company.
  4. The Scholar search is populated entirely with patents. Patents aren't reliable sources and do not establish notability, although a reliable source writing about it would.
I don't believe you have uncovered any references that verify Melih's notability. --- tqbf 20:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment – First of all “Happy Holidays”! Now to your Comments. I believe MSMBC is a Notable and Verifiable source. That alone I believe establishes Notability. The second comment as regards to quote; “…provides no additional reliable sources writing about Melih.”. I am going to act stupid here and ask What additional sources do you require? . The third Comment; “….it does include several written about his company” means what? His company deserves an article, but He doe not. Finally , the forth reason, I leave to all the other Editors to make up their own mind and hopefully a keep vote is made. Once again Happy Holidays. Shoessss |  Chat  21:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we're saying the same thing. Clearly, there are reliable sources for Comodo. There simply aren't any that write about this guy. Comodo is his company; when I say, "I'm not nominating Comodo for deletion", I'm saying, "his company merits an article, and he doesn't". --- tqbf 21:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The "additional sources" I require are spelled out in WP:N --- a topic is presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So:
  • A single quote from the subject in an article about the subject's company is not significant coverage.
  • A press release from the subject's company is neither reliable nor independent.
  • A patent from the subject is neither reliable nor independent.
There are no references in the nominated article. I've looked for them (and studied yours) and haven't found any that qualify. The onus is not on me to find references at this point. This article should be deleted. --- tqbf 21:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect If someone could verify the claims made in the "Awards and recognitions" section I'd change my mind but without that I don't see the notability. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 12:04, 28 December 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.