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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

World Union of Turkish-speaking Cypriots

World Union of Turkish-speaking Cypriots (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable recently established NGO that is using Wikipedia as a means of publicity. Attracted my attention due to recent addition as a "see also" link to irrelevant articles. The organisation itself has no proper coverage in independent, reliable sources - the five sources in the article are either non-independent (the organisation itself, records of its registration in the UK and Cyprus), briefly mention it in the passing or entirely irrelevant. The content itself has a heavy POV and reads very much like an advertorial ("It took the world’s attention..."). Seems like an attempt to establish self-importance by a fringe movement. GGT ( talk) 15:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 16:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 16:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 16:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I do not think there is a rule about "recently established organisations" in Wikipedia policies. And please clarify what do you mean about "non-independent" since there is a coverage from international magazine in the article. There are a lot of article about the organisation in Europe and Cypriot press. For example, here is a article ^[1] from a Cypriot news agency about organisation when its invited to general assembly of European Free Alliance, one of the major political party in European Parliament. And it indicates that they are the only organisation from Cyprus invited to the assembly to talk about political situation of Cyprus as well as the attacks happened against Afrika (newspaper). That is normal that Turkish nationalist Wikipedia users or editors will not be happy see this organisation exist and they will try to vandalise the article. But it does not change the fact that this is a known organisation and there will be more article about it since it has a representation in institutions like European Parliament. So that can be better to improve the article instead of deleting because second option looks more like vandalism. best Pasedembo ( talk) 20:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• To be clear, this article was not nominated for deletion because it's a recently established organisation (that bit only strengthens my point that this is self-promotion), it was nominated because it does not meet WP:ORGCRIT, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The magazine in the article does not have significant coverage of the subject, it only mentions it in the passing. I had not seen the source that you have provided now, it seems to be based on a statement made by a WUTC representative ("WUTC temsilcisi konuyla ilgili yapıtığı açıklamada" = "the WUTC representative, in his/her statement on the subject..."), which means it is not independent. In any case, this is only a single source, multiple sources are needed, which I have been unable to find. Your aggressive labelling of me only serves to strengthen the idea that the article was written with ideological, not encyclopaedic, concerns in mind. And your claim that this organisation has "representation in the European Parliament" is outright misleading. -- GGT ( talk) 22:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Now it is really not clear why this article was nominated for deletion. Because your arguments were based on few things which is not part of WP:ORGCRIT. Lets have a look at them again here. You words "Non-notable" and "fringe movement" is clearly POV. Wikipedia policies do not allow its editors to delete articles because they think that something is "fringe". And an organisation who has recognition from European Parliament probably makes them notable enough. Also you clearly wrote that "recently established" word which now you are saying that you didn't nominated article because of this reason. Fair enough. But all arguments that you made for the nomination is based on these two POV. There are significant coverage in multiple reliable sources about the organisation and I shared examples. There is only one sentence about "the statement of WUTC representative" and rest of the article is a news report from very respected Cypriot news agency. Many people who will read these entry do not know Turkish, so lets do not manipulate the sources when we share them. I am not gonna get involved in your accusation about "me labelling you". There is not a single letter I wrote is about personally you. So please shows the part that I am labelling you personally about something because now you are accusing me and attacking personally to me. In the end I am repeating that deleting this article will be vandalism and politically oriented because this well-known organisation has coverage enough to suit with the Wikipedia policies. The correct thing will be to improve it. best Pasedembo ( talk) 06:13, 11 July 2018 (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.