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. Courcelles 09:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halis Aydemir[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient indicia of notability to support a finding of notability for this academic. The article has been tagged for notability since 2009.Epeefleche (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have you checked Turkish sources? Do you even read Turkish? Until we have someone who is fluent in Turkish see if this professor is notably covered in Turkis sources we should keep the article. Is there a way we can get an inquiry on this matter in the Turkey project page of wikipedia.?John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a viable keep !vote. "There may be sources to support notability but I haven't seen them" isn't a reason to keep an article. The subject doesn't meet our notability requirements. We have tons of Turkish academics for whom we do have reliable sources -- see Category:Turkish academics. He isn't one of them. And his "accomplishments", such as they are, as reflected in the article don't meet our requirements for academics. Our rule isn't "notability requirements are suspended for people from non-English-speaking-countries."--Epeefleche (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing presented in the article would indicate a pass of WP:PROF, even without the separate issue of whether it's adequately sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that there "may exist" some sources in Turkish is not a viable argument for keeping the article - such sources need to be actually produced. GBooks and GoogleScholar searches in English produce almost nothing of relevance. As D.E. observes above, even if all information currently given in the article is accepted at face value, nothing there indicates passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would be unusual for anyone to have achieved the standards of WP:PROF so early in an academic career (PhD in 2004 and associate professorship since 2009) and there's nothing in the article or that I can find elsewhere to indicate that Halis Aydemir is an exception to that general trend. Turkish uses the Roman alphabet, so searching for the subject's name as written in the article would find Turkish as well as English sources if they existed. There's no need to understand a language to see that Google Books only finds books by the subject (two of the three being self-published via Lulu.com) and Wikipedia mirrors, that Google Scholar finds no citations to those books, and that Google News, which has wide coverage of the Turkish media, finds nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Prof#C1 with zero cites in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2011 (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.