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. Consensus is to Delete this article. But like with many others, an article might be possible in the future should available reliable sources (not Google hits) improve in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aya Shalkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadı Message 21:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants, Popular culture, and Kazakhstan. Kadı Message 21:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable influencer, no sources found. Ones given appear trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Weak, because there is no critique of the soruces present (in Russian). Plus a Russian-language search should be carried out to confirm there are no sources. No, I am not doing either, neither, but at least I admit my shortcomings, hence the weak qualifications. That said, responsibility to clearly indicate why the subject is notable, and format footnotes correctly with info on publisher, etc. to indicate they are relable, translate names in citations templates, etc. is the responsibility of the creator. Since they didn't do so, the article looks like it fails GNG/NBIO, hence - leaning delete. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Fashion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep instead of deleting, using it as stub and expending the article would much make more sense cuz this article doesn't even mention LoL copyright controversy. ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, @ZeusAmmon1. According to your Turkish and English Wikipedia edits which belongs to Aya Shalkar makes me think about WP:COI. Do you have a connection with Aya Shalkar? Kadı Message 19:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hahaha This is exactly what you're doing here. You started a deletion request here after deleting it there. By the way on English wikipedia i don't have any edit. So what are you talking about? Check the authorship ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to understand the first part of this comment, but I must explain that there is a trwiki side of this story as well. ZeusAmmon created the article of this subject on trwiki on 6 September, which was speedy deleted per M6 (similar to A7 of enwiki), then recreated by him the next day, then deleted again and salted as well. He took this to the talk page of the second patroller, where he called the patroller for violationg NPOV because... he didn't send the article to AfD but rather tagged it for CSD, which, you know, is a bit on the weird side of the argument spectrum. Once notified about this AfD, he proceeds to join in with an argument that is based on no enwiki policy (not even trwiki policy) whatsoever. Generally speaking, this is considered to be suspicious behavior, and a question realting to a conflict of interest is quite normal. ~Styyx^Talk? 20:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Afd rule isn't different from the Turkish version and I don't understand why you're trying to associate some model and graphic designer with me. It looks like you're trying to manipulate community here. You should have send it to Afd at Turkish wiki, but obviously but you didn't because of with a ridiculous reason. Kadı accused me with typing at both wikis and association with her (which writing on both wikis isn't against the rules), but as i prove before I don't have Aya shalkar related edit. Kadı, can you explain me why you accusing people while people are able to check authorship of articles. And the thing i don't understand why are you guys keep coming here to answer me? It smells fishy :D. There's only one way to this gethering and it's a ban reason. So, be honest are you guys live puppeting/shadow puppeting each other? ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD isn't different, but speedy deletion is. Trwikis M6 allows you to pretty much tag everything that doesn't have two sources (GNG pass), while enwikis A7 applies to only a set of limited articles that don't have a credible claim of significance. This would pass a trwiki M6, but not an enwiki A7. Why the two patrollers on trwiki went for CSD and not AfD is beyond my knowledge, but there is no such requirement of sending everything to AfD, and two seperate admins have deleted it. Being eligable for speedy deletion isn't a "ridiculous reason".

You do realize that this very edit of yours is an Aya Shalkar related edit, right? And that's the point here: you come to participate in an AfD discussion in a project where you have no idea as to how its deletion process works. ~Styyx^Talk? 22:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise we're not at wiki/Aya_Shalkar or /wiki/Talk:Aya_Shalkar ? ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently commenting at the deletion discussion of Aya Shalkar. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sources found other than trivial mentions. Not WP:NOTABLE by Wikipedia standards. Jontesta (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there's a blue-checked account by her name on Instagram with 742,000 followers, but short of a million, and that's not automatically notable in my book. Basically, secondary sources are sparse. Is she still notable enough? Bearian (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2022 (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.