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.
✗plicit 10:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)reply
an artifact from 2008. considering
the original article, it was likely written just to promote the entity. ltb
dl (
talk) 10:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep — The article having promotional text way back in 2008 is pretty irrelevant since it's now entirely stripped down of any content, barring a few sentences that just describe the association. Obviously not the best of articles, but I think the topic is notable. Firstly, this is a non-profit, so
WP:NCORP treats it a bit nicer compared to actual companies. Having been founded in 1928, it's pretty unlikely that an organization of this size and history doesn't have any coverage available, and I'm honestly not convinced a
WP:BEFORE has been carried out (because I indeed have found sources within a few minutes) since the nomination makes no mention of notability. A rationale solely consisting of "was promotional at some point" cannot be the basis of an AfD.
Styyx (
talk) 11:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)reply
@
styyx: hey, could i have a look at your sources? ltb
dl (
talk) 17:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)reply
If you can show me you did a WP:BEFORE, then yes.
Styyx (
talk) 17:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)reply
seriously? ltb
dl (
talk) 17:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, seriously. I do realize I'm being a dick here, but a Google search is the bare minimum expected before sending something to AfD. If you say you couldn't find any sources while searching, that's also enough; I'm not going to shame you for not finding anything in a different language, but I do still want to see the effort.
Styyx (
talk) 17:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)reply
oh, very well then. all the sources i dredged up were trivial mentions (eg.
[1][2]). ltb
dl (
talk) 03:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)reply
That's fine, and I'd agree with your assessment on the 2 particular sources you mentioned. I added some better ones to the talk page. Also they have
10055 hits on Hürriyet which is a lot.
Styyx (
talk) 09:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep — I have added another cite. If anyone likes to merge in the "see also" articles that would be good I think as I doubt they deserve their own articles.
Chidgk1 (
talk) 17:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. TED is fairly well-known. I tried to do a quick search to find better references, but surprisingly, I couldn't find any good ones. So, I would respect any reasonable votes to delete, but TED is a known, old organization.
Aintabli (
talk) 19:55, 14 September 2023 (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.