Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yilmaz Bektaş

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. the sources provided are not sufficient for a BLP Star Mississippi 14:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yilmaz Bektaş

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because all sources are gossip that centered on his celebrity wife who was a Miss World Contestant. Twice, the article was moved to draft space for incubation and to pass through AFC review but was moved directly back to the main space. Majority of the sources are from non WP:RS and they are all written in same format of "Who is ...", "Net Worth", "Age", "Early life", "Education", "Wife". Patre23 (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cyprus, Turkey, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It appears that his only claim to significance is his previous marriage to Ruffa Gutierrez, but notability isn't inherited. The sourcing, unfortunately, reflects this as pointed out by the nominator. I don't think a redirect would be appropriate given that there's nothing significant about Bektaş in Gutierrez's article. Yue💌 19:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. [[1]],[[2]] and [[3]] are enough to establish notability.
102.91.102.2 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Few reliable sources are available. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. By the way, "Few reliable sources are available" is not a strong argument for a Keep. Which sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject appears notable due to his business, diplomatic roles, and UN affiliations, but the article lacks proper sourcing and structure. A rewrite with reliable citations is needed to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. -- Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garvitpandey1522, what are some reliable sources that exist today? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The independent coverage is essentially gossip and tabloid journalism, this person is not independently notable. His position as a businessman and diplomat does not make him notable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The current coverage is plenty to meet WP:BIO. Mysecretgarden (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the above sources provided by the IP are reliable. eksisozluk is something like a reddit or twitter, that link is like giving a search URL for the name from twitter and calling it a "reliable source with significant coverage", that's just nonsense, feeddi link literally says the text is taken from wikipedia at the end of the page, the first link is not reliable either, it's more about the wife and it's more like a tabloid journalism like stated by Helpful Raccoon. There is zero "reliable sources with significant coverage enough to establish notability" here. The other keep voters didn't specify any source at all so can't even evaluate these mysterious "few reliable sources". If they were referring the ones linked by the IP, like I explained it's 2 spammy links with one of them being a direct copy paste from wikipedia, and one is a link to a twitter-reddit like user-generated site. Tehonk (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2025 (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.