Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Eurasian Studies


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  02:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Center for Eurasian Studies

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No independent, in depth sources found. Note that due to the close connection of the topic to the Turkish government, sources that are not independent of the latter (including state media like Anadolu Agency) cannot be counted for notability. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Armenia and Turkey. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Mr/Ms. Thank you for openening the same discussion almost 4 years later. The discussion 4 years, with the participation of other individuals was closed and enough resources were decided to be present. The article does have already have independent sources, Balkan Günlüğü, Robert Schuman Center, World Review of Political Economy, Istituto Affari Internazionali, etc. Please do consult (again) the references part. As it can be seen (again) there are multiple sources, from multiple countries. It is also interesting the sources such Istituto Affari Internazionali, Robert Schuman Center are not considered as in depth. Tetulun (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Concerning    "Balkan Günlüğü," this news outlet is recognized within various     Balkan communities for its independent reporting. Like many     diaspora-driven media organizations, including those in Greek and Armenian     communities, "Balkan Günlüğü" is valued for its diverse     perspectives. It’s important for Wikipedia to represent such sources     accurately, reflecting their significance in their respective communities.
 * The    mention of AVİM in the news coverage warrants a nuanced approach. The     extent and context of AVİM’s inclusion in the news are relevant factors.     Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines caution against bias or subjective     judgment in evaluating source significance. My observations suggest a     recurring pattern in the treatment of Turkish think tank entries,     particularly AVİM, which could be perceived as targeted or biased.'
 * Regarding    the references to Robert Schuman and Istituto Affari Internazionali: while     it's true that working papers and opinion pieces require careful     consideration for reliability, these institutions are generally respected     in their fields. Their analyses, including those divergent from AVİM's     views, contribute to a comprehensive understanding of issues like     far-right movements and women's rights, topics AVİM has addressed.
 * The    inclusion of Istituto Affari Internazionali as a source should be viewed     in the context of its publication history and relevance. Its decision to     republish content from Hürriyet Daily News, a well-regarded international     news source, underscores the value of the content rather than detracts     from its credibility.
 * The    reference to JSTOR highlights a misunderstanding. JSTOR is a digital     library hosting academic journals; it doesn't cite sources but provides     access to articles that do. In scholarly discourse, citations of     organizations like AVİM are commonplace, whether for support or critique,     contributing to factual and comprehensive academic discussions.'''
 * The    practice of citing think tanks and grey literature is a standard academic     convention, serving to enrich discussions with diverse viewpoints and     specialized knowledge.
 * Comparisons    between AVİM and ASAM should be approached with caution to avoid unfounded     associations. It’s crucial for Wikipedia discussions to remain objective and     free from personal biases or assumptions about contributors' intentions.
 * Tetulun (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the list of references by including three new sources, each offering news relevant to our discussion. These sources are:
 * 1) An Index from the University of Barcelona, a respected academic institution renowned for its contributions to scholarly research.
 * 2) A news piece from the Eurasia Center at John von Neumann University (Hungarian university), which is noted for its academic focus on Eurasian studies.
 * 3) A news item from Georgian news organization, the Accent News. Tetulun (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Enhanced the article by introducing a dedicated section on the Center's various activities (Projects). Additionally, enriched the article's verifiability by incorporating three new references, from Middle East Technical University, WorldCat, and Google Books. Tetulun (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting, this discussion needs more than 2 editors taking part in it. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: For further input. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom and source eval above, fails GNG and NORG. Sources are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly an d indepth  // Timothy :: talk  02:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Added three new sources from Agos Newspaper, Euronews, Kıbrıs Postası (Cyprus Mirror), Organization of Turkic States. Tetulun (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: Source table sums it up, just not a notable institution. I can't find any sourcing that would !keep the article either Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How does the table sum up that it is not a notable institution?. The table in itself, the person who created the table in itself has him/herself created the table based it on opinions. For example argues that Hürriyet Daily News or Accent News does not have intellectual independence? Based on what argument? Another example is Robert Schuman. Robert Schuman in itself is an important institution. Then the individual questions Working paper aspect, yet this is not questioned in other wikipedia articles? Furthermore the  article contains 29 sources. Tetulun (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:SOAP and WP:SPAM. Sources don't meet WP:SIGCOV as noted above. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2024 (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.