Wikipedia:articles For Deletion Piramid Lgbt Diyarbakir Initiative

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 delete. Uncontested, despite the nominator now being blocked. Sandstein 14:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Piramid LGBT Diyarbakir Initiative

Sources on article is not reliable. Blogspot is an not reliable source and sources maybe self-published. Article was created by unknown user. Article nominated for deletion. Vietkingo 17:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 1. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~ Sources is not reliable. Vietkingo 20:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply

*You do not get to !vote delete on your own Afd. Your deletion rationale above suffices. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment article was not created by an "unknown user," whatever that means. Moreover, I'm puzzled by the nominator's behaviour, among other things, creating this Afd, attempting to twice !vote delete, but then canvassing an editor to help "prevent" deletion? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment I mean user has limited contributions. See the user's page. İn reality, there is no LGBT members or presence in Diyarbakır. Vietkingo 20:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The nominator will I suspect be blocked rather shortly, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sedej. Also, see WP:Competence. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete All sources are fictitious references. Two sources which are in the Sources section are not working at all, dead links. The first source which is used in the leading section is Blogspot blog. Also the third source isn't looking as reliable source or enough to show that article is notable. Bianet is like Liveleaks, anyone could write anything they like. No enough independent sources. Two issues here, using Blogspot which is against WP:RS and not enough third party sources for statements and the whole article, which makes it against WP:3PARTY. Also, not enough sources to verify WP:NOTE. Ferakp ( talk) 20:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment nominator is banned multi account usser, we need closse this. Shadow4dark ( talk) 12:20, 22 April 2016 (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.