Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/16 June Movement

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. I'd like to remind everyone that assertions of notability are only good enough to prevent A7 deletion; an AfD necessitates cold, hard sources, which don't seem to be around. m.o.p 05:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16 June Movement

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

After a bit of research, I can't find any evidence that this movement is notable enough for inclusion. There are some vague mentions on various forums and books, but nothing concrete. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 16:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the passage "Eight members of the organization known as the 16 June Movement [16 Haziran Hareketi], which is responsible for several bombings at Istanbul trade union offices and business centers, the raid on the police station in the Siteler quarter", at [1] would constitute notability. If you google the Turkish name, you get 26,200 hits. --Soman (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave it for others to decide, but one small mention in that report doesn't quite strike me as "multiple reliable sources". That said, I think someone might be able to find some stuff in Turkish, but since I don't speak and can't translate it... Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, great job on the research by Soman (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, not sure qhat research you are referring to, since I don't see anything upon clicking that link. Am I missing something? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible bars to inclusion for political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders regardless of ideology — because this is the sort of material that SHOULD be in encyclopedias. I'm also gonna argue that if it's good enough for the Turkish Wikipedia and the Russian Wikipedia, it's good enough for the English Wikipedia. Now, both of those are stubs, to be sure, as is this piece. Sometimes that's what it takes until someone with specialist knowledge comes along, however — stubs as placefillers. The group was headed by Sarp Kurai, published a paper called Partizan Yolu, and had about a 12 year existence, it would seem. Those are facts that belong in an encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, I don't mean to be hounding the opposes, but it seems I've had something to say to everyone of them. While I respect you opinion, it just sounds like you are saying that you like it. Yes, this article may need expert knoledge, or it might just have been a movement based in someones basement that got together for potluck suppers twice a month for twelve years. I really don't know, and in the seeming absence of any real sources, its a little hard to tell. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 19:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's one way to view my perspective. Here's another: we are here to make sure that challenged subjects are encylopedia-worthy. Does a topic belong in an encyclopedia? Is the information therein verifiable? In this case, a strong YES to the former and a weak YES to the latter. Room for improvement? Sure. Carrite (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, I just don't see where the weak yes is coming from. =/ Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 03:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not rely only on google searches. There is a historical event on 15-16 June 1970. This group took the name from this 15-16 June on Turkish Wikipedia. The event was one of the biggest worker movement in Turkish history. The group might not be notable but the event is. --Tacci2023 (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never mind notability, the article is entirely unsourced even after a week at AfD, making it fail WP:V. Sandstein 07:22, 8 December 2011 (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.