Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bülent Gökay


 * 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. While 's points have merit, no sources have been provided to prove that he meets any of the WP:PROF criteria. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Bülent Gökay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Virtually no information; notability not established. Article started by a connected party  Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 10:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This page has no information whatsoever. Does not pet WP: Notability. The Wikimon (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE  TB randley  14:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The page suggests no evidence of notability per WP:ACADEMIC Adblock2 (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - unless Globalfautline (mentioned in the article) is somehow special, this article should go; if it is special, then that should be the page, not this man. Unfortunately, this page doesn't add much.  Sophiahounslow (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - No information that would establish notability. Kabirat (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails Notability (academics). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Stubbing a fairly long article and then stating "virtually no information" as the primary reason for deletion is probably not to be recommended as a course of action - although stubbing, in this case, was admittedly almost completely unavoidable as the original article was an unwikified resume probably copy and pasted (by someone with obvious COI) from somewhere else. As to the subject's notability - I'm completely undecided. A professor at a middle-ranking English university has a good, but far from certain, chance of meeting WP:PROF on one or more criteria. Though, looking at the likely ones - British professorships are sufficiently less common than, for instance, American ones that the possibility of WP:PROF#5 should be considered, but they are sometimes awarded for administrative responsibilities one or two levels below what could justify WP:PROF#6, and this looks quite possible in this case. Otherwise, the subject has what looks like quite a long and respectable publication record, mostly in English but partly in Turkish, some of which looks probably well-cited considering his areas of research. The problem, made more difficult by the rather random order of the GScholar results, is judging whether he meets WP:PROF#1 - chances are, I think, that he doesn't quite, but I'm really not sure. PWilkinson (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2013 (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.