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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham ( talk) 11:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Hakki Akdeniz

Hakki Akdeniz (  | 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)

Was deleted previously because of being advertising and recreated again. AmirŞah 19:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Turkey, and New York. AmirŞah 19:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Given the creation of similar articles by multiple accounts, I hope someone is looking into sock puppetry/UPE. Assuming that's not an issue, it should at least be histmerged with Draft:Hakki Akdeniz. The subject is notable, with a number of decent sources covering him. Could be a bio; could be merged into a history/background section of an article about Champion Pizza (a fairly well known chain in NYC). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep According to my survey, it was deleted before, deu to having advertising or promotional context. It has been created by another user. Before creating this article, they have created another article about a notable Turkish actor. This article is their second created article about a notable Turkish chef. Therefore I do not think about sockspupet. About article, the subject is clearly notable and has been featured in VOA, NY Times, CNN and ect. Also the context of article is encyclopedic and we can't find any promotional or advertising context. Fabiobengario ( talk) 07:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Please share you reason of nomination perspicuously! It was deleted before is not reliable reason to nominate this article for deletion. Because as you mentioned, it was deleted because of using advertising context and this article was written in natural point of view, so there's no reason to nominate the article for deletion! Meanwhile subject easily passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. —Natalie RicciNatalie 20:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. sources in article shows a clear pass of WP:GNG. regarding to advertising, couldn't find any advertising content and it has been written naturally. Alimovvarsu ( talk) 22:02, 8 July 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.