Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selim Deringil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. — Caknuck 17:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selim Deringil[edit]
- Selim Deringil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) + no sources. Svetovid 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found and added some references from reliable sources. - Richfife 20:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources found by Richfife. I'd also admonish Svetovid not to mark constructive edits (like adding a bibliography!) as vandalism. JavaTenor 20:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a misunderstanding. I called his removing the WP:PROD without adding any sources to claim otherwise vandalism.--Svetovid 20:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would refer you to the policy page you link to, which quite clearly states that anyone can remove the prod tag at any time. Furthermore, you re-added it several times in violation of WP:PROD#Conflicts. The proper response to a contested prod is generally to nominate it for AFD, as you did later. (Further discussion on this issue should probably take place on one of our Talk pages, so as to avoid cluttering this AFD). JavaTenor 22:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup I made a mistake uwing TW (I thought it was AfD template the second time), sorry about that. Anyway, that's all I have to say about that. I'm still waiting for someone to show why he is notable.
Writing few books and have it reviewed by "colleagues" doesn't cut it for me.--Svetovid 08:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup I made a mistake uwing TW (I thought it was AfD template the second time), sorry about that. Anyway, that's all I have to say about that. I'm still waiting for someone to show why he is notable.
- I would refer you to the policy page you link to, which quite clearly states that anyone can remove the prod tag at any time. Furthermore, you re-added it several times in violation of WP:PROD#Conflicts. The proper response to a contested prod is generally to nominate it for AFD, as you did later. (Further discussion on this issue should probably take place on one of our Talk pages, so as to avoid cluttering this AFD). JavaTenor 22:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep the NYRB review refers to him as professor of history, not merely giving lectures at--can this be confirmed?DGG 00:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That university's phone directory lists him as "prof. dr." and its history department faculty listing includes him as regular faculty. Even more clearly, the university catalog calls him a full professor. —David Eppstein 00:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, he's a full professor. It wouldn't have made a difference to me were he "just" a lecturer. The question remains: why is he notable?--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 04:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That university's phone directory lists him as "prof. dr." and its history department faculty listing includes him as regular faculty. Even more clearly, the university catalog calls him a full professor. —David Eppstein 00:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally,to be appointed a full professor at any university, one has to demonstrate notability to the satisfaction of the faculty in ones field at least three times with successively higher bars: when they hire you, when they give you tenure, and when the promote you to full professor, with fewer people making it through each time; the main factor in this determination in a research university is the quality of one's research, and the quality of research is what makes professors notable. I don't think we are qualified to do this better than a good university department does, & for a department in a university I know to be important, we should grateful accept the distinctions they make. In this case I said weak keep' not "keep" because the number of published works looks a little thin, and--with apologies to those who are in a position to know better--I myself do not know the standards of that university. There is however nothing more basic to the nature of distinction in the academic world than the difference between an instructor and a full professor. DGG 03:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- RandomHumanoid(⇒) 00:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 15:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While article need work, he appears notable enough to recieve an award for his work. Edward321 23:39, 17 June 2007 (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.