Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Süleyman Başak (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Süleyman Başak

Süleyman Başak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Renominating after previous AfD was closed prematurely, although consensus was strongly to delete. Non-notable academic per WP:PROF with very few publications. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, the deletion review discussion is here. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_17 --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. While he looks to be having a successful academic career (editorial boards, cited papers, good appointments) I don't see what there is to point to as a sign of special prominence. —David Eppstein 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as I said at the 1st Afd, and explained subsequently "adequate article, but asserted notability as a professor. Expanding the article, he is Associate prof. at the London Business School, a part of the University of London, & of similar quality to the best US Schools. An Assoc Prof. can be notable if he's received enough recognition through publication & citation. He has 17 peer-reviewed papers, one reprinted in an anthology. The highest two have counts of 53 and 44 citations. He's associate editor of 2 good journals, which also counts as professional recognition. But not yet a full professor. " That's weak keep, which --at least as I use it--informally means I wasn't going to defend the article further and I considered a delete as a reasonable opinion. It wasnt 53 total cites, it was 53 on those two papers alone. The total count was probably about 100. What also influenced me was the rep. of his current position, where he got the PhD, his associate editorships, and especially the excellent quality of the particular journal he published the two papers in. & I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to 3rd world. If he had not been 3rd world, or the journal had been of lower rep., I might have said Neutral or just Commented.DGG 00:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • DGG, I'll repeat my question from the first AfD: Let me ask you: only 17 articles in a field known for highly prolific authorship? 53 citations on his two leading articles??? (You had originally said 97!) Why do you think this is [remotely] notable? --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The numbers were 53 on the highest and 47 on the next, as specified in the article. As i said, I think its borderline, balancing slightly to keep by consideration of the nature of the journals and the slight tolerance I do give to third world--as long as the publish in the main international journals. I would consider either result acceptable. I just give the data I find, and say what I think. I don't expect that people will decide according to my judgement, nor do I advocate that they do. Here's the info, here's my rationale, you make your own decision. I mean it literally that I trust the consensus of multiple WPedians at AfD more than my own personal judgment. I see what John V found. He suggests it might be tie-breaking, and I think he's right. DGG 05:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:PROF and WP:NN --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, the article is now well sourced, and this is enough to cross the PROF line. John Vandenberg 00:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How does a mini-interview with him change his notability? --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 15:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - Look carefully on the page where it says: "A listing fee of US$ 250 may apply"?! [remark removed]. Out of courtesy, I've removed my previous remark and I will rephrase here, since perhaps the previous phrasing suggested the magazine gets the bulk of its income from fees from its authors, which I agree doesn't appear to be the case. Regardless, I think the fact that a fee might have been charged, at least to some of the listed interviewees, in this case makes this set of interviews a non-reliable source. I agree the magazine indicates it used some editorial discretion in mailing the lists, but the intent of the set of interviews appears to be to indicate "the variety of people" working in financial engineering and at least in my mind, the presence of this individual in this set of interviews doesn't advance notability. - Aagtbdfoua 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (modified at 16:45, 21 June 2007)
      • That is an extremely bold claim to make, and inappropriate without the due diligence. There are only two uses of "listing fee" on that domain, and this instance it clearly says that the fee is applicable for people who wish to be added after the fact to that webpage, and that the editors have the right to reject submissions. As can be seen here, this interview was almost certainly included in the print edition. I have looked through the digital images of the print edition, and there are 25 profiles included; in the online version there are 27, which indicates that only the last two have been added after the print edition. Note that I have written an article for Financial Engineering News. John Vandenberg 03:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • RandomHumanoid, the interview gives a little notability in that the subject was selected by an expert to include within a sample of specialists. Also, without this interview a lot of the facts regarding the subject are difficult to source. The interview being published in a print magazine means that the details of this bio have been recorded in a reliable manner, and depending on the editing process of this magazine, have also been fact checked in order that the facts are also reliably accurate. My reason for a weak keep is a combination of the scholar results, having worked at two business schools that are easily within the best in the world, being involved in Review of Finance, and having been an editor at Management Science (but that looks out of date so he may not currently be on the editorial board), this gent is definitely not entirely lacking notability. Both journals are held in many libaries[1][2]. I have yet to spend a lot of time on this, as I stopped when I found the interview, and have now been side tracked in order to defend a magazine. An quick look on worldcat.org shows 23 "books" (usually extensive working papers, readers, etc), all with the subjects name first; 22 written for Centre for Economic Policy Research, New York University Salomon Center (part of the Stern School of Business), Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania (and the associated Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research); and and one for UMI Dissertation Services. John Vandenberg 05:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • John, let me just reply about the interview. The linked article begins: The editorial goal of this Special Feature in FEN was to highlight, by use of a highly non-scientific sample, the variety of people working in the financial engineering field. ... Our only disappointment is that, despite contacting hundreds of candidates with an invitation to submit a profile... Thus, they randomly sent out requests for interviews and these people self-selected themselves to be included. The $250 listing is entirely suspect. I have done many, many interviews regarding my work. Had anyone asked me to pay for them to be featured, I would have laughed in shock and shown them the door. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 09:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • RandomHumanoid, the interview only added a "little notability" to my opinion, but when weighed in, it helps a lot with sourcing. Why? well it was in print, fact-checked to some extent, and sent to peers. The last one is important, as it invokes academic integrity. If major details in the interview were false, there would be more coverage of it. As a result, we can assume that the majority of the facts in the Wikipedia article are accurate, which is a major factor in whether we should keep an article (esp. a BLP).
          As for the quality of the source, it is one thing to suspect, but it is another to assert those suspicions are likely to be true. As best I can tell the magazine did not make wads of cash out of this as the fee was only for submissions that didnt make it into the print edition, so it is unnecessary to cast dispersions on a magazine. (otoh, if your own inquiry shows that there are other problems, I'll be the first to thank you). "non-scientific" does not diminish the editing that occurred; really it only demonstrates that this is a magazine, rather than a journal. i.e. they didnt want to receive feedback on their poor sampling. The reality is that the sample went onto real gloss paper sent across the globe for free; it is not cheap, and they will have filtered the list down somewhat. John Vandenberg 16:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No matter how you slice it, this guy just isn't really notable on a global scale. This article is little more than a list of where he works and goes to school. See WP:PROF and WP:N. /Blaxthos 11:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to pass WP:NOTE. Note that "global" notability is unnecessary, especially with respect to a professor and writer from a less developed country. If he's notable in his home country, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. --Charlene 17:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Charlene, I'm curious, where does "if he's notable in his home country, he's notable enough for Wikipedia" come from? Is this your interpretation of WP:NOTE or has this actually been agreed upon? It seems like a very low bar to set. E.g., the foremost physicist in Monaco (the world's second smallest country) may have some fame in his homeland but be totally unknown in the scientific world. (NB: Totally made up example.) Is he somehow notable?--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:53, 25 June 2007 (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.