Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niyazi Kizilyurek

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niyazi Kizilyurek

Fails the criteria set down in WP:PROF - books seem to be minor works, there is no evidence of significant impact, etc. Vizjim (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems to have a fair amount of news coverage, but I'll have to leave it to someone that knows Turkish to evaluate it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are also several hit for GScholar [1] and Gbooks. [2] Edward321 (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article doesn't present any evidence that he passes WP:PROF, nor is it apparent from Google scholar and Google books. So the only thing we have left to go in is the news coverage mentioned by Bridger, but in the absence of a Turkish editor to interpret them for us they also don't help much. In the absence of evidence of notability, I think the default should be to assume he isn't notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add one point: Turkish Wikipedia has no article on this scholar [3] If he were significant, one would expect a Turkish Wiki article to appear first. This is particularly the case if the news articles that talk about him are all in the Turkish language (the English ones describe him as an assistant professor, i.e. below the threshold of WP:PROF.) Vizjim (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS gives only a handful of cites. Notability does not seem to be demonstrated by GS or more generally. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2009 (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.