Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saygin Yalcin

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. Discounting the sockpuppet disruption, there is a clear consensus to delete the article and start again from scratch. Nakon 01:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saygin Yalcin

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Notable, but the extensive promotional content will make it necessary to start over. The article is entirely a string of quotations.

If any experienced editor witll deal with this, I will withdraw the Afd. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a google search, seemed cool Hhplactube (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blow it up and start over The amount of SPAs and possible socks in this AfD is highly suspicious as well as the article's creation by a SPA. This attempt to pressure DGG to withdraw the nomination is equally unsettling. This article was clearly created with the intent to promote the subject and should be deleted appropriately. I would also request that future versions of this article be required to pass through AfC to minimize the possibility of another promotional version cropping through. Additionally I ask that DGG not withdraw this AfD so that a fair consensus can be reached. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Winner 42 and WP:TNT and fully endorse the view of Winner 42 it should come through WP:AFC if recreated.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts blocked as sockpuppets. Mike V • Talk 18:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand what AfD is supposed to be used for? Taking your nomination statement at face value, the appropriate course of action is to speedy the article, or blank 90% of it and ask for assistance rebuilding it on the talk page. Heck, you can re-write the article from scratch. This is not a technical subject. 24.193.38.8 (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No answer, so I repeat: You, DGG, in your nomination statement said the subject is notable. The subject therefore ipso facto warrants an article. Your choices are to improve the article yourself, which you can certainly do because the subject is not technical, or to speedy the article if it is not redeemable. AfD is not called for.

By the way, why do you think the article is "a string of quotations"? Certainly doesn't appear to be. 24.193.38.8 (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)— 24.193.38.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Probably the most notable person in the technology sector in the Middle East.

Which edits do you suggest? I would keep the article, maybe remove some wording to change tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Joneson Dulei (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC) — Jim Joneson Dulei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This is out of question. If DGG has a problem with "tone", he/she should suggest wording edits, not Afd. Withdraw from Afd notice GerrahToto (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC) — GerrahToto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep unchaged I have just read through the article and also went through the references, which are impressive to be honest. I haven't got the feeling that this article is too promotional, but rather correctly mentioning awards and recognitions. They belong into articles, as long as they are backed up by reputable references, which they all are. The article has no significant string of quotations. Withdraw Afd notice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haine Wilson (talk • contribs) 15:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC) — Haine Wilson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Definitely not an Afd. Keep Person seems notable in the technology sector and article does not seem promotional. Suggesting to remove the Afd notice — Preceding unsigned comment added by GungorFalaz (talk • contribs) 19:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC) — GungorFalaz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hello DGG if you cannot add any value to this article, I believe we should close this discussion and remove the Afd notice. I suggest we give it another 3 days maximum until we remove the box, as all contributors here seem to agree that an Afd was uncalled for. added by Anna Kullianova (talk • contribs) 04:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC) — Anna Kullianova (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep and stick to the article. Not users. Since when is wikipedia about how the users use their accounts linked to the quality of the content of the article? "Being suspicious" is purely off-topic and not related to why the article was placed to Afd. Going back to where we started: Either improve the article or withdraw the Afd, as subject is notable Alan Fillings (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This calls for harsh measures and some less COI. The level of refbombing is just amazing. If someone not connected to the subject believes he is notable then eventually the article will be created. For now I'd even recommend salting it given what has been going on in this AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:24, 28 April 2015 (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.