Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BELTUR

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 12:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BELTUR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Holding company does not meet WP:NCORP- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, thanks to sources found by Styyx. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Once someone adds the Turkish-language references shown here, notability will be clear. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:GHITS for discussions to avoid at AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on references found by Styyx. Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria (even in Turkish and looking at a couple of the results pointed to by Eastmain above). Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It may be notable, I do see lot's of citations in Google news, but not sure if anything is significant. I added one new citation. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While it isn't correct to just paste Google hits, I've found some sources there that are significant. Source about re-opening after Covid, Source about alleged tax evasion, New board of directors "controversy", 48 locations in 36 hospitals closed, A later source with updated numbers, Source about super-high prices (though a bit short). Together with the Sözcü source already in the article (rest are primary), I think this company passes NCORP. There are a few more sources, but these aren't significant and/or reliable. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Note: article expanded with the sources I mention above. HighKing: any interest in looking again? ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Styyx, thanks for taking the time to dig up more references. There are two sections of WP:NCORP which I use to see whether a reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. The first is WP:ORGIND and especially the definition of "Independent Content" which says a reference must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The second is WP:CORPDEPTH which requires in-depth information on the topic organization. The NTV reference appears to rely on a statement made by the company, the additional information in the article is generic COVID19 reopening information and does not meet CORPDEPTH. This first Sabah reference comments on an investigation into one of the company practices, it does not provide in-depth information on the company though. But the second Sabah reference doesn't provide the source for the information revealed in the article (maybe the translation is poor) but otherwise I would say it meets the criteria in my opinion. In a similar vein, this Cumhuriyet reference appears to meet the criteria as it does not rely on information provided by the company and contains enough in-depth information. The T24 reference relies on a statement from the company, fails ORGIND. The Aksam piece is social media gossip, not really worth considering. Since there are two references which in my opinion meet the criteria, I'll change my !vote and thank you again for doing the leg work on this. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:21, 15 September 2021 (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.