Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Halilsoy


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mustafa Halilsoy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails PROF and BIO -- see searches for GS and Gnews above. Really, the citations to his work are very low for someone of his age/tenure, and the only source for the page currently is his own cv. Since this is a topic related to Cyprus, I imagine there is a possibility we might experience a blizzard of edits to this one -- so those who might say 'keep' are advised to produce evidence of notability, not simply unsubstantiated opinions.

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Citations are a bit complicated because he changed his name from Mustafa Halil in 1980 and has 7 publications under that name (see his CV), and Google Scholar's coverage that far back isn't always great. Including both names (but filtering out a gerontologist called M Halil), Web of Science gives citation counts of 93, 16, 11, 11, 9, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6… and therefore an h-index of 7. (The paper cited 93 times is "Colliding Impulsive Gravitational Waves" highlighted under "Selected Papers" in the article.) I don't think this is enough to meet WP:PROF point 1 and no evidence that he meets any of the other criteria of WP:PROF or WP:ANYBIO. He's chair of a physics department, but one with only 2 other profs, 1 associate prof and 3 assistant profs.  --Qwfp (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think it's also worth noting that he is second author on the one that does get cited (see here); first author was his PhD supervisor.  Which means that what he has done on his own, post-PhD, doesn't amount to much.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, how can you judge his work on General Relativity by saying " post-PhD, doesn't amount too much."? I am amazed how can you say such a strong statement. Are you an expert on General relativity? And you say " worth noting that he is second author on the one that does get cited" How did you reach to that conclusion?

Please have a look at Jerry Griffiths's book on Colliding Plane Waves in General Relativity link. In that book there are 9 references for Halilsoy's post-Phd work from 1981-1989. . Also Professor Jerry Griffiths maintains Bibliography of Colliding Plane Waves, and there I can count 11 papers from Halilsoy alone.

Nomoskedasticity, you are not qualified to judge Halilsoy's work. Please stop the deletion or get an expert opinion.

--mcyp (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Qwfp. All academics publish, being cited in a book is nothing extraordinary either. Many more citations would be needed to establish notability. --Crusio (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Crusio, How did you judge so simply that his contribution to the field is nothing extraordinary? Are you expert in exact solution in general relativity and in cosmology in general? Well, all academics publish but his contribution to Colliding Plane Waves in General Reativity is distinct that is why it was pointed out his large number of citations from that definitive book in the field which is verifiable. His contribution in Halil-Nutku solution is acknowledge by great Physicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar on his article ,more over this solution mension in many places  like in a history book.

How can you remove his contribution on Halil-Nutku solution over a day? You reach strictly a personal NON-EXPERT conclusion with a bias without any solid argument. I provide you solid evidence. You can NOT delete article without disproving his contribution to the field with evidence.

I humbly ask you to verify before reaching to a verdict and as you know judgment in a particular field for outsiders is quite easy. Even though you are not humble in your judgment at all.

--mcyp (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel fully qualified to make a judgment here, because we are not judging the value of Halilsoy's contributions. We are judging whether at this point they are notable in an encyclopedic sense. Having been cited in one book, mentioned by an article, etc. does not satisfy the notability criteria for academics. This does not at all mean that we are disparaging his contributions to the field. We only note that their have not yet been enough citations (typically, hundreds of citations are needed) to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. If his contributions are as valuable and noteworthy as you say, I am certain that this will result very soon in a large number of citations, awards, etc. At that point, we will be able to create an article on this person, because he will be notable (which I hope it is now clear is something completely different from "worthy", "deserving", or any other quality measure you may think of). --Crusio (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

is given?
 * Crusio, Yes you have judged the value or significance and impact of his contribution by saying " ..being cited in a book is nothing extraordinary". According to WP:ACADEMIC, Professor Mustafa Halilsoy in a very strict sense satisfy the first criteria. Also I provide your independent reliable sources c.f.notable. I provide you SOLID evidence that his contribution made a significant impact in the field that even a Nobel Prize laureate wrote a paper about this solution and this solution cited in many other places even in the History book about General Relativity. Also I don't see your point here by saying "hundreds of citations are needed", please show me a place in WP:ACADEMIC that there must be hundreds of citations are needed to prove the significance of an academic. I provide you SOLID evidence about his impact on the field is quite notable. I don't know what else you need to see. How many ordinary scientist are there on this planet having their name on a particular solution or an equation

(Please note that I am sure that you are approaching the matter in a good faith as an academic yourself, so nothing personal, but I'm just saying that you are not in position to judge its impact in that particular field as being non-expert.)

--mcyp (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * comment Looking at Halilsoy's cv, I'm convinced that User:Msuzen has a conflict of interest here.  You've made your feelings known, and I would now suggest that you leave this page alone.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

To keep the neutrality. I won't participate to this discussion or edit the related article. --mcyp (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article fails to demonstrate the notability of the subject using independent reliable sources. There are no truly independent sources or links in the article; the newspaper story cited is an interview, not a full story. —C.Fred (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The actual citation statistics are that he has 61 papers in WebofScience, none with more than 11 citations. This is not large, but, unfortunately, all or almost all of the citations are from himself or his co-workers. I am sometimes willing to be flexible for people not in mainstream institutions, but this sort of record is not showing academic notability at all.    DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 31 August 2009 (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.