Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedat Laciner
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 of the debate was Keep Computerjoe's talk 16:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sedat Laciner
Nominated for deletion for being a vanity page. Being a professor or having been on Turkish TV before does not make one wikipedia-worthy. Also this page was created by its subject. Vartan84 04:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Also see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sedat Laciner for other comments.
- Keep. While I agree that it is not good to write articles on yourself, he appears fairly notable [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and see his userpage for many other specific articles he has apparently published. --Fuhghettaboutit 05:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I would think your link to Google Scholars counters your claim of notability. We have people like this one without WP entry, so we shouldn't give space to the academic scree, especially if they're of the self-promoting variety. ~ trialsanderrors 06:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- .You really think the "we don't have articles on these more notable subjects, therefore this less notable subject doesn't belong" argument has merit? I think the the two propositions bear no logical relationship whatever--Fuhghettaboutit 03:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Not necessarily (although I see the obverse all the time) but a Google scholar link with 5 entries is all by itself a strong argument against notability. I just brought up the comparison because some people simply have no perspective on what it takes to be notable in academia. ~ trialsanderrors 04:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a strong argument against; it's one of a number of separately enumarated bases, which I think should be looked at as a whole. Certainly, there is nothing here screaming strong or speedy keep, but on the razor's edge, I feel this falls on the side of keep. By the way, the obverse should be seen all the time as it is precedent. However, that should not be used to affirm the consequent.
- Not necessarily (although I see the obverse all the time) but a Google scholar link with 5 entries is all by itself a strong argument against notability. I just brought up the comparison because some people simply have no perspective on what it takes to be notable in academia. ~ trialsanderrors 04:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment this is a previously userfied article (see here). I have solicited opinions on Laciner's notability as I have no ideas myself. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Might be at the lower bound of notability (although Assistant Professor at an undistinguished university is very lower bound), but WP:AUTO puts him below the line. Don't start your own articles, folks. ~ trialsanderrors 18:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable enough. Being director of ISRO, selected "Young Global Leader" for 2006, books published, what else do we need? --LambiamTalk 01:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- You clearly have some deep connection with ISRO if you speak of it by name and actually know what it is, Lambiam. While it is linked from Mr. Laciner's page, it goes to the Indian Space Research Organization. If you were a normal wikipedian (and not Mr. Laciner himself or an associate?) you would likely be as in the dark as the rest of us about it, not use being the director of it as a good reason for his bio to remain on wikipedia. On top of that, you claim he has books published. Well I'm sure SOMETHING (his organizations?) published the books listed on his page, but it was not by any real publishing company. I looked up the name Laciner on amazon, which has practically anything published ever, and there were no results. Thus, his "books published" were probably done by his own organization and that certainly does not warrant him a place on wikipedia. Heck, my uncle has published a few things that you can actually buy on amazon but I'd never think of adding him to wikipedia for that reason. Finally, yes he was selected "Young Global Leader", but the way you state it is misleading. He was A young global leader, not THE young global leader of 2006. If you check the list he was one of about a hundred or so. Unless each of them deserve a complete wikipedia page for that reason, merely participating in a conference, then that can't be used as a reason either. I seem to have exhausted reasons Laciner should have a wikipedia page, do you have any others? Vartan84
-
- Argue the merits and leave the shrill, bloviating incivility and unwarranted sockpuppet accusations behind; they do nothing but hurt your argument. Yeah I suppose it's possible that Lambien made 3,000 edits to disguise his future plan to post a vanity article and make it look like he was a new user with 135 edits. Actually the plan has worked, here I am defending Lambien so I must be another Sedat Laciner sockpuppet. Guess those 13,000 edits were a good cover so I can disagree with you without worrying too much.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- I did argue the merits. I put forward arguements backing up why I think each reason put forward for Laciner's "famousness" and deserving of a wikipedia entry do not stand up. I do not want to attack anyone personally, so please direct further discussion of why he should be on wikipedia towards my reasons he shouldn't. Vartan84 16:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Argue the merits and leave the shrill, bloviating incivility and unwarranted sockpuppet accusations behind; they do nothing but hurt your argument. Yeah I suppose it's possible that Lambien made 3,000 edits to disguise his future plan to post a vanity article and make it look like he was a new user with 135 edits. Actually the plan has worked, here I am defending Lambien so I must be another Sedat Laciner sockpuppet. Guess those 13,000 edits were a good cover so I can disagree with you without worrying too much.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- REASON IS ARMENIAN FANATICSM When you search 'Sedat Laciner' in Google you'll see more than 100.000 entries Google Sedat laciner search. Laciner is one of the famous Turkish academicians. Vartan84 is an Armenian user, and he is not happy with Prof. Laciner's studies on Armenian issue. That's why Vartan 84 nominates one of the most famous Turkish researchers for deletion. I do not know who created the page, yet many others contributed the page and I am sure many more will do. If Wiki deletes this page there are more than 100.000 pages in the Google and Vartan and his radical friends cannot delete all of them. Please be constructive instead of discriminative. Wiki pages should be an arena for Turkish-Armenian conflicts David Falcon 08:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please, no personal attacks. Also, you know very well that most of these 100.000 pages are pages from the Journal of Turkish Weekly and USAK Stratejik Gündem, both of which are published by USAK. I get only 159 "unique" Google hits. I am in favour of keeping the article, but not with such arguments. --LambiamTalk 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I actually get 100 less hits then that; it says 55 unique hits when I search for him on Google. Regardless of the number though thank you Lambiam for the defense despite our past disagreement over this issue. I can assure everyone I am no "Armenian fanatic" nor did I nominate Mr. Laciner for any such reason. Vartan84 16:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please, no personal attacks. Also, you know very well that most of these 100.000 pages are pages from the Journal of Turkish Weekly and USAK Stratejik Gündem, both of which are published by USAK. I get only 159 "unique" Google hits. I am in favour of keeping the article, but not with such arguments. --LambiamTalk 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete. The article is very problematic, as it is created by the subject, who really is not broadly notable. At the same time there are no entries of really notable Turkish scholars such as Kemal Kirişçi, Şerif Mardin, Murat Belge or Hüseyn Bağcı. Bertilvidet 09:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that it is a shame that these don't have an article. Only Murat Belge has an article on the Turkish Wikipedia. Unless the argument is that the names mentioned are at the border of notability so that anything less must drop off, I don't see how this is relevant to the decision we're trying to reach here. I don't think of the subject of the article as being particularly notable for his scholarship in the academic sense, but more so as an intellectual who through various activities has an input in the policy debate on a variety of issues. While not "broadly notable", there are many less notable subjects who have an entry, and I'm not referring to poor Mr. Mike Bach, but for instance all-around nice guy Marc Hetherington, or Chris Weinkopf, or Bill Bauer, or any of zillions more. I personally don't see the point of deleting those (I guess I must be something of an inclusionist then), as long as the information is verifiable and can be presented from a neutral point of view. But if we start deleting, then why not start at the low end? --LambiamTalk 16:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I know people love him because he gives credence to wholly unnotable entries, but Mike Bach is on his way out. Just in general, don't use the existence of unnotable entries to make a case for another unnotable entry. Propose the ones you want deleted for deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- As I said, I don't particularly want them deleted. The point is that I'm in favour of a certain evenhandedness; maybe I'm mistaken, but I sometimes get the the impression that people from countries not in the core of the First World with otherwise the same qualifications are more likely to be considered non notable and have their entries nominated for deletion. --LambiamTalk 19:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just reading through today's deletion log I can't say that Non-First World/English speaking subjects are more likey to be targeted for deletion. But that's an empirical question that's poorly addressed by examples. I'm much more interested in cases where the subject or some close acquaintance is the likely only/main editor of the article than their origin. ~ trialsanderrors 20:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- As I said, I don't particularly want them deleted. The point is that I'm in favour of a certain evenhandedness; maybe I'm mistaken, but I sometimes get the the impression that people from countries not in the core of the First World with otherwise the same qualifications are more likely to be considered non notable and have their entries nominated for deletion. --LambiamTalk 19:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I know people love him because he gives credence to wholly unnotable entries, but Mike Bach is on his way out. Just in general, don't use the existence of unnotable entries to make a case for another unnotable entry. Propose the ones you want deleted for deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that it is a shame that these don't have an article. Only Murat Belge has an article on the Turkish Wikipedia. Unless the argument is that the names mentioned are at the border of notability so that anything less must drop off, I don't see how this is relevant to the decision we're trying to reach here. I don't think of the subject of the article as being particularly notable for his scholarship in the academic sense, but more so as an intellectual who through various activities has an input in the policy debate on a variety of issues. While not "broadly notable", there are many less notable subjects who have an entry, and I'm not referring to poor Mr. Mike Bach, but for instance all-around nice guy Marc Hetherington, or Chris Weinkopf, or Bill Bauer, or any of zillions more. I personally don't see the point of deleting those (I guess I must be something of an inclusionist then), as long as the information is verifiable and can be presented from a neutral point of view. But if we start deleting, then why not start at the low end? --LambiamTalk 16:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep. Its bad to make your own article, but it seems to have changed lots without his continued involvment. JeffBurdges 14:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Jeff. JoshuaZ 16:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not so sure about that. David Falcon's contributions look somewhat sockpuppety to me. ~ trialsanderrors 18:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Dr. Laciner is one of the leading well-known scholars in his field. An article on Laciner will enrich Wiki knowledge base. Deepblue06 02:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I don’t see how Laciner is a leading well-known scholar in his field. There is quite an easy way to know if someone is indeed notable in his field, Laciner is in political science, right? Well, he has written books right? Then we know of the notability of a writter on the notability of his publications. If he is notable enough and that his works are notable enough, there should be at least one notable critic of his works published at least in one notable scholarly journal. I have checked in the databases there is none, neither was his works ever cited in a reputable journal. If we were to start creating articles about individuals leading or not, from who knows what think tank organization we could add thousands of people that have no place. Anyone here can visit university factulties and pick professeurs who follows master or doctorate degree students, what is the probability that they are published scholars and that their works are cited or criticised in a reputable journal? The probability is pretty high, and I personally known professors who are really, really reputable compared to this man, but still, I’d qualify not enough for an encyclopedia. Fad (ix) 06:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and move to Sedat Laçiner. --Cat out 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Would you please elaborate? Not having any hits on major social science ressources (neither as author nor as source - see talk page) I believe that the level of academic notability argues for deletion. But please let me know if he has notability in other fields, maybe political. Bertilvidet 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: If wikipedia has an article on an obscure trade union activist who obtained 25 votes in a local election (Huri Vayiç), I really don't see why it can not have an article on Sedat Laçiner. Another member of the Forum of Young Global Leaders from Turkey that we have in wikipedia is Daron Acemoglu, an Armenian of Turkey.Cretanforever
- Doesn't make sense, I don't know that person, but suppose that that individual should not be on Wikipedia, how does this justify a keep? For all I know, I can randomnly choose anyone and give credence to his notability. Lets take David Davidian, he has a registered organization collecting databases, for all I know, publish materials, and of course he is the president of his own organization. Lets just add him. Lets also add Laciner protege, Holdwater, because his site and his pseudonym gives various hits. I think that he hasn't published anything relevent in any reputable journal other than his, and that his works have never ever been criticised positivaly or negatively in any reputable journal or ever been cited in any reputable journal would downplay the claim of notability. If him, his journal or what have you are notable, why then, no one cite them, why then no one cite the materials then? Had he not added his own page, would there have been anyone here that would have thought of ever creating the pages he has created? I am sure there are various Turkish Journals covering science matter etc., which are probably much more cited. Kamuran Gurun the Turkish retired Diplomat was much more notable, his work denying the Armenian genocide had been critised by reputable journals, is there anyone here that though of even creating a page about him? Laciner not only has used Wikipedia to boost his credibility, but he has used also google searchengines to do so, with various pseudo think-thanks linking to eachothers and then ending on his persona, and now he is here in Wikipedia desperatly trying to creat the illusion that he has some notability. What notability? There are hundreds of think-thank organizations, I can creat one myself, I can creat my journal, register it and publish works from my own publishers. would that make me worthy of being included in Wikipedia? Fad (ix) 18:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, create a notable think tank and you would be article worthy. Hard drives are cheep. --Cat out 18:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK then, lets add the hundreds or thousands of think thank organisations in Wikipedia and a page for their presidents. It's plain ridiculous. Fad (ix) 18:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I can gladly create a list. The only thing ridicous here is this nomination. --Cat out 19:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem you understand what is an encyclopedia. Let me tell you another ridiculous thing. If you had really understood what is the subject of this nomination, you would not have requested moving the article to itself. :) Anyway, everyone has the right to have his/her opinion. Fad (ix) 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia is a collection of all human knowlege, not knowlege you aprove. I can read the reasons of the nom et all, is there anything I am not told? --Cat out 10:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh come on! So you are saying wikipedia is a place for ALL human knowledge? Seeing as some humans have knowledge of me, for that reason alone do I merit my own wikipage just like Sedat? Your arguement of all human knowledge could be applied to absolutely everything nominated for deletion. If we are going to be that inclusive why need to delete anything at all? This of course would result in absolute everyone from the craziest nutjob to the obscurest nobody to have their own page, but I guess as long as it is within the realm of all human knowledge it's fine... Vartan84 23:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia is a collection of all human knowlege, not knowlege you aprove. I can read the reasons of the nom et all, is there anything I am not told? --Cat out 10:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem you understand what is an encyclopedia. Let me tell you another ridiculous thing. If you had really understood what is the subject of this nomination, you would not have requested moving the article to itself. :) Anyway, everyone has the right to have his/her opinion. Fad (ix) 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I can gladly create a list. The only thing ridicous here is this nomination. --Cat out 19:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK then, lets add the hundreds or thousands of think thank organisations in Wikipedia and a page for their presidents. It's plain ridiculous. Fad (ix) 18:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, create a notable think tank and you would be article worthy. Hard drives are cheep. --Cat out 18:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Doesn't make sense, I don't know that person, but suppose that that individual should not be on Wikipedia, how does this justify a keep? For all I know, I can randomnly choose anyone and give credence to his notability. Lets take David Davidian, he has a registered organization collecting databases, for all I know, publish materials, and of course he is the president of his own organization. Lets just add him. Lets also add Laciner protege, Holdwater, because his site and his pseudonym gives various hits. I think that he hasn't published anything relevent in any reputable journal other than his, and that his works have never ever been criticised positivaly or negatively in any reputable journal or ever been cited in any reputable journal would downplay the claim of notability. If him, his journal or what have you are notable, why then, no one cite them, why then no one cite the materials then? Had he not added his own page, would there have been anyone here that would have thought of ever creating the pages he has created? I am sure there are various Turkish Journals covering science matter etc., which are probably much more cited. Kamuran Gurun the Turkish retired Diplomat was much more notable, his work denying the Armenian genocide had been critised by reputable journals, is there anyone here that though of even creating a page about him? Laciner not only has used Wikipedia to boost his credibility, but he has used also google searchengines to do so, with various pseudo think-thanks linking to eachothers and then ending on his persona, and now he is here in Wikipedia desperatly trying to creat the illusion that he has some notability. What notability? There are hundreds of think-thank organizations, I can creat one myself, I can creat my journal, register it and publish works from my own publishers. would that make me worthy of being included in Wikipedia? Fad (ix) 18:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Does he even proofread his articles? Hakob 18:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete I find it funny that he created an article on himself.--Eupator 19:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Only a loser creates an article on himself.--Moosh88 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Civility is unheard of then. --Cat out 10:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Another member of the Forum of Young Global Leaders from Turkey that we have in wikipedia is Daron Acemoglu, an Armenian of Turkey. The article has been created by an anonymous user:) I checked the IP. Possibly a loser and a coward:) (this is a joke, Acemoglu seems like a notable person) Cretanforever
-
- Please see WP:AUTO Bertilvidet 11:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Which suggests autopbiographies are strongly discouraged, not banned. Hence that is not a criteria for delete here or there. --Cat out 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Right, not a criteria, but indeed a valid argument. Please let us know if you have knowledge about the guy, that can add to his notability. Bertilvidet 16:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Which suggests autopbiographies are strongly discouraged, not banned. Hence that is not a criteria for delete here or there. --Cat out 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please see WP:AUTO Bertilvidet 11:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Nothing wrong as long as the information is accurate JorgChire 05:10, 8 June 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.
