Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehmet Serkan Apaydin

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 of the debate was DELETE. This makes is to a reasonable consensus to delete; AGF says that the nom is the subject and that can help the consensus along, although not make the decision for us (usually). -Splash^talk 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mehmet Serkan Apaydin

I do not want to be listed in wikipedia and am not a contributor to the existing contents. Someone outside my knowledge has created an article about me. Mapaydin 05:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 05:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Metamagician3000 05:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking at it again, the person concerned is approaching the borderlands of notability. Still, I can't see evidence of anything that has yet had an influence, such as solid publications. This looks to me like a career that will be notable, if all goes well, but probably isn't there yet. I could understand the subject of the article being slightly embarrassed by it at this stage, if that is the situation - there are a lot of other people with promising careers who don't yet have wikipedia articles - but that's not the reason for my view. Metamagician3000 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I can understand his wishes, but now that he does have an article, we can't remove it because he doesn't like it. It has to go by its merits, and I appreciate your taking the time to clarify that you are voting by the merits of the article, rather than the alleged request of the subject. — Adrian Lamo ·· 07:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep wait, what? back it up. The article asserts notability, and seems to support it well. This article won't be deleted on the say-so of one user claiming to be the subject of the article. — Adrian Lamo ·· 06:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if sources are provided. The subject appears to be notable, but the claims need to be verifiably referenced. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Google Scholar reports 24 citations for academic papers, which may well be sufficiently notable so as to keep the article.  (aeropagitica)  07:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, looks notable enough, but more sources needed. --Terence Ong 09:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article asserts that it's about a smart fellow with a lot of research assistant and undergrad level accomplishments. However, that's not notability. Calling the Professor Test into consideration, this guy isn't even a Professor. The most notable comment is about getting the bronze as part of the Turkish team in the International Olympiad of Infomatics which is a redlink in the article. Being a research assistant even if it's in a notable area is not notability - there are thousands of research assistants. I haven't done any research outside of the article to look for notability but the arguments presented in this AfD seem to suggest that the article itself asserts sufficient notability and I cannot see that to be the case. If the Google Scholar type research finds sufficient notability, I'll change my vote to keep. MLA 10:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MLA. Will possibly get an article one day, but at the moment a lot of people at a similar level get deleted. JPD (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MLA. Not notable at present. Thatcher131 15:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Persons notable for achievements in science and technology tend to be involved with people and projects which are also independently notable - the redlinks here undermine such claims to notability. I agree with MLA. Deiz 19:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MLA and Deiz. Research associates working on an otherwise notable project are not notable in themselves, though some PIs might be. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I seem to recall a recent policy regarding subject of an article requesting deletion of that article (but I can't locate it). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Adrian L. Monicasdude 04:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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.