Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KizlarSoruyor

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. Consensus is to keep the article. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 15:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KizlarSoruyor

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is the Turkish version of GirlsAskGuys, listed for deletion a little above. It isn't entirely clear to me which came first, but the notability is about equal for the two, and so is the promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination of this page for the deletion makes no sense. Notability is clear from the sources: :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). As long as the promotionalism is concerned, I have removed part of the content which could seem promotional, though they were just statistic of visitors. I am going to add more reliable links and one can guide me in improving the page. Thank you.Stangpa (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems notable from the sources, so rather than deleting the page, contents can be improvised. Mehmood.husayn (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We really need an assessment of the Turkish-language sources here to be able to decide either way in this case. FOARP (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The assessment clears the doubt that the subject has been discussed by the top media outlets in detail.

Let's start the assessment for the references.

Reference # 7 is the brand of American City Business Journals, The Business Journals and has been reported by a senior reporter of the business journal.
Reference # 8 is from one of the top media outlets of Turkey, Vatan.
Reference # 9, 12, 13 is from Milliyet, one of the oldest newspapers of Turkey.
Reference # 5 is also from a well-known newspaper in Turkey.

Besides, other references are also from renown outlets. There are thousand other references on the web which discuss the subject but the inclusion of all those will not be necessary, I think. Stangpa (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have received WP:SIGCOV based on Stangpa's analysis of sources. I'm not surprised if the concept of a "girls ask guys" website turns out to be more popular in Turkey than in the United States, considering cultural differences. feminist (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on USER:Stangpa's analysis - thank you for your input. FOARP (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2019 (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.