Disputatio:Mahometus Muradus Ildan

(Redirectum de Disputatio:Mehmet Murat Ildan)
Latest comment: abhinc 17 annos by in topic Renewed call for deletion

Sceptical recensere

Sorry for being sceptical, however, this article (and it's brothers and sisters in other Wikipedias) looks a bit strange to me. I have asked Usor:Cicero (see Disputatio Usoris:Cicero) to provide some extra information (ISBNs, etc.), if possible. --Rolandus 22:05, 19 Novembris 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nomina recensere

Hmmm, since Mehmet and Murat are both attested as Ottoman names, do we maybe want to Latinize to Maomethes Amorathes İldan? I also note that "Shakyamuni" is mentioned in Jesuit descriptions of Japan as Xaca. But I am unsure if that form, being a transcription 釈迦, should be used without reference to Japan. --Iustinus 19:01, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Iustine, if Mehmet doesn't equal Mahometus, you might want to tell Wikipedia, which, s.v. Muhammad, says (boldface added): "The name is also transliterated as Mohammad, Mohammed, Mohamed, Muhammed, Mahommed, Mehmed, Mehmet, Mahomet. In Latin, it is Mahometus." IacobusAmor 05:15, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm, maybe I'm thinking of Mahmud! But in any case, I can come up with a good rationale for using this rationale instead: there's actually a zillion Latin forms of Mohammed (granted, Mahometus has been my favorite since reading Eichenseer's translation of De Sigaris Pharaonis), and given Mr. İldan is Turkish, why not go with the Ottoman form? (Of course a flaw in this argument is that even for Mehmet there's more than one Latinization, but I like Maomethes because it was used by Christophorus Richerius Thorigneus in De Rebus Turcarum, a book which has a special place in my heart, being the first archaic book I looked up in special collections... this of course was for Wikipedia too ;) ) --Iustinus 05:37, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
Heheh, I probably should have mentioned that one such Latinization is mentioned in another article I'm working on right now... ;) --Iustinus 06:28, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Delete recensere

This article should be deleted. I who call for delete is admin on no:, no:Bruker:Orland. This article is spread to several editions of wp as a extreme self-pr without any reasonable notability

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Personally I'd like to wait and see what other wikis, with larger staffs, decide to do. --Iustinus 23:27, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
{{iocus}}? --Rolandus 23:45, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
I missed that you had already called this article into question above. It does look like the French are planning on keeping it though: see fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Mehmet Murat İldan --Iustinus 00:04, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
Re: "wp as a extreme self-pr without any reasonable notability"—looks like he's got several books to his credit, and in several genres, and such an article is accordingly more justifiable than many already in Vicipaedia, non? IacobusAmor 01:04, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
You are right and I do not have a problem with less relevant things anyway, however, what I really would like to know is, whether that isn't a joke at all. Google does not help in this case: The books deal with Shakespeare, Galilei, Gandhi, Buddha. Millions of hits. These books might be listed at postion 370 or 1520. I gave up. The references are just two sources, in fact. The one might be a fake as well. I am not sure about the second: How can someone add an entry to www.kultur.gov.tr? Funny situation. --Rolandus 01:23, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
the english article is obviously lying about his reputation, as it foresees how his reputation will be in the future. Please note the intro statement "Following his epistolary novel, en:The First Sorrows of Young Werther, he is regarded as a romantic writer", when the book in question is due to be published in february this year. This is indeed prophetic skills by the article's author. When the article also states that this unpublished «The First Sorrows of Young Werther» is his magnum opus, we can easily assume that this author is not notable, yet. --en:Orland 07:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC) --no:Orland 24. jan 2007 kl. 10:57 (CET)
The points to which you object—the prophecy, the epistolary novel, the estimate of the author's reputation—do not appear in Vicipaedia. IacobusAmor 12:34, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Renewed call for deletion recensere

Take a look at en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehmet Murat İldan. This article is now deleted from almost every wikipedia, due to the aggressive selfpromotion. en:User:Orland / no:Bruker:Orland (admin on no:) -- 19:39, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply

After heaving read the discussion in the English Wikipedia, I personally do not see a reason to delete this article now. Nobody there has doubts about the correctness of the information. Great! People over there are just complaining - not arguing - about a lack of relevance and argue (!) that the article is or will be deleted from other Wikipedias. Just the supporters of the article provide facts. I'd like to have facts. Who has the expertise to rate this author? Of course we should note, that the article needs better sources and more information. I like the idea that maybe Usor:Cicero translates the English article (Usor:Rolandus/temp/Mehmet Murat İldan) into Latin. This is not an important article, however, I do not see a reason to delete it. --Rolandus 20:21, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
There are some people around who don't like this guy. The English Wikipedia article was just deleted although deletion is still under discussion. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:25, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
The "supporters" are all sockpuppets. It is not the facts per se, but the massive selfpromoting attack on the entire wp-community. In the english edition he has made articles on unpublished manuscripts. I urge, together with wp-friends from several editions, that the entire wp-community stands together in rejecting this. As they said in the french debate: Supprimer! Pour le principe ! The deletion in english was made by a unregistrated user, probably as a sign of resignation.
I have nothing to say against this guy (in my english discussion page, someone even suggested that my action is caused by hate to all turcs), but I strongly react to his attack on wp --en:Orland / no:Orland -- 20:36, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
And some facts: I am a literary critic, and have published one book on childrens literature, in norwegian. This single book gives more hits in google ([1]) than his name [2]; and the odds are even worse if you remove the wikipedia hits [3]. (And of course, this comparision is not completely fair, as www is more common in norway than in turkey, but still) --en:Orland / no:Orland -- 20:36, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
Would someone "in the know" offer an explanation of the politics driving these deletions? Vicipaedia's text appears to be factual, and that's a prime consideration, non? Vicipaedia's text does not seem to contain aggressive self-promotion. If any links do, they can easily be cut. IacobusAmor 20:44, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
Orland, I understand your and your friend's reasons, but I do not vehemently support them. Relevance does not have the highest priority for me, see Vicipaedia:Gravitas. Accuracy and traceability have a high priority for me. So I deposed my doubts more than 2 months ago (see above) and - frankly speaking - I am not yet satisfied. We are not undemanding here, but we might have a slightly different value system. --Rolandus 21:19, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've looked around a bit more now. Yes, it was self-promotion. I think I should take Ildan's correspondence course. no:Orland was surely right to urge the speedy deletion of the English Wikipedia articles about all Ildan's individual books. However, I feel differently about the brief bio articles on all those language Wikipedias (incidentally, it's not true that they are "now deleted from almost every wikipedia" -- though deletion has been proposed on most of them). Ildan is a published and versatile writer with numerous books in Turkish to his credit. The way to balance the coverage of Turkish literature on this and other Wikipedias is to add articles about others, not to delete him. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:24, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
You may want to say exactly this in the deletion debate over at en:. I can't say I feel strongly about the larger issue one way or another, but inasmuch as he is a published author, and the article is factually correct, it seems that so long as the Latin is good, we shoudl keep it on la: at least. --Iustinus 09:28, 27 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
Look for more information in my english en:User_talk:Orland#A_statement_in_the_Ildan_case. Note also that at least 14 wp-languages until now has delete the spamming Ildan-biography; and note also that three different anonymous ip-adresses this last day has tried to delete from the english article [4] interwiki-links in order to "hide" where deletion debates are ongoing. As stated by a french contributor during this debate "this guy launched one of the most incredible spam event that I've ever seen on WP". On the english deletion debate his spamming behaviour is a part of the argument, together with Ildan almost total lack of signifcance en:User:Orland / no:Bruker:Orland -- 16:40, 27 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
Orland, this edit by you in en was not correct. The summary says reverted an attempt by the author to hide the numerous interwikis undergoing deletion process but it seems that you additionally destroyed an attempt to cleanup the article. Later the article has been blanked again. And restored again. Yes, an anonymous user (the same as on en) removed interwiki links here as well. I have reverted his edits and blocked him. And, as I said, I was sceptical whether the provided information is true at all. But after all it seems, that for us it is ok to keep this article. I'd like to thank you for having informed us about the issue. However, even when the article will be deleted on all other Wikipedias, we might just cleanup the interwiki links and keep the article. I have this feeling. The promotion action does not count. Calling it a self-promotion is curious. Nobody can know whether Mehmet knows about this case at all, although someone claimed the opposite. Ok, the promotion was bad, but the reaction smells bad as well. --Rolandus 17:39, 27 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
Orland, the entire text of this article (other than footnotelike material) is "Maomethes Morathes İldan (natus Ancyrae 16 Maii 1965) est scriptor Turcus." To which part of it do you object? You've acknowledged that the man has a name, and so was presumably born ("natus"), and you've conceded that he's a Turkish writer. That leaves in dispute only "Ancyrae 16 Maii 1965." What's wrong there? ¶ Yes, it would be splendid for Vicipaedia to have articles on more Turkish writers. Feel free to write them! As to İldan's famelessness, if Vicipaedia can sustain an article on Crates of Mallos (an author probably less read even than obscure Turkish scribblers, self-promoting or not), it can surely survive having an article on İldan. If this article, however, is a hoax, then of course it should be deleted. Do you have proof that the Turkish writer İldan does not exist? ¶ As to the point about what other wikis are doing: so what? must all wikipedias march in lock-step? can't each wikipedia have unique articles? At the moment, Vicipaedia's article Fafa, for example, seems to be the only one of its kind—in der Welt. And why not? Every comprehensive & heterogeneous project will have strengths & weaknesses, highlights & blind spots. IacobusAmor 18:05, 27 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
First; I regret for any unintended errors that might have occured during my attempts to control vandalism to the article during the deletion debate. Second: If neither lack of notability nor spamming towards the whole wp community is considered a reason for deletion at Vicipaedia, then I can only rest my case. I will respect your policy; but as an admin at no:; I regret it. en:User:Orland / no:Bruker:Orland -- 19:02, 27 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
Finnish Wikipedia has decided to Keep this article.
Finnish Wikipedia now also features a new reference to this writer's appearance in a US-based culture magazine (it published a section of Ildan's play). 19:09, 6 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Birthplace recensere

Having checked his birthplace in the Turkish and Kurdish Wikipedias, I've corrected it here. He's a Turk, born in Turkish Kurdistan. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:07, 27 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see the Kurdish article has now gone. That's a surprise, since this author is a native of Kurdistan and it was quite a substantial article. If it carries on like this, Vicipaedia will soon be the definitive source on Ildan. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:08, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
Revertere ad "Mahometus Muradus Ildan".