Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasin Şöhret


 * 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__. Liz Read! Talk! 09:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yasin Şöhret

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

Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. The sources are primary and not reliable, there is no in-depth independent SIGCOV. It is being cross-wiki spammed with different accounts/socks for several days and has clear COI/promotion issues. The creator has been blocked on trwiki for socking. Tehonk (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I will let the general public decide the article's fate, however I am here to clear up I am not a sock. Never have never will be. I have had sock puppet investigations of me in the past and I am still here. The guy claiming I am has a history of blocking on impulse without following stipulated procedures. I am appealing the block because I am innocent on the Turkish Wiki. Serrwinner (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Science, Engineering, Aviation,  and Turkey.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  11:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Admin's comment. For the purposes of the discussion at AfD, we need to focus on the merits of the article, not the contributors. If the concern is recent editors putting an undue glow on the account and putting the subject in their best light, that's an easy fix for editors. Please focus on more fundamental concerns, like whether the subject meets the above-linked notability standards. —C.Fred (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete — Lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. "Kimdir?" sources are generally of very low quality and there is a long-standing consensus on trwiki that they can't be used to establish notability. In this case those are the only third-party sources that exist. I don't really see a prominent claim to pass NPROF either. The influential scientists list took around 200,000 people into account, while AFAIK the actual number of scientists around the world is way higher. Anyway, this limited recognition doesn't translate into a high h-index. Very respectable person in his category and maybe even notable in a couple of years, but not now. Styyx (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. What are the "Kimdir?" sources that we are supposed to ignore, and please provide a link to specifics pages where their reliability has been debated; evidence please. If you can convince me I will change my vote. Beyond that, while his h-factor is not high if you compare it to others who list Aerospace as their focus it is not bad, i.e. the discipline adjusted h-factors is fair. He seems to be publishing in reputable journals with decent impact factors, not junk journals. (I definitely vote strong ignore to the accusations of socks/COI which have been thrown in without evidence and are clearly inappropriate.)
 * Ldm1954 (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion on "Kimdir?" sources can be seen here. There is unanimous consensus that they can't be used to establish notability, and rough consensus to not even use them in articles at all. Note that this was the status quo even prior to this discussion.
 * On another note, while I didn't mention this in my initial statement, I very much share the sock/meat puppetry concerns regarding raised above and beyond, though this is not particularly relevant to this AfD. Styyx (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * i had not come across these "Kimdir?" sources before. In my ignorance I viewed them as weak secondary. I have deleted them from the page, and will revise my vote to Weak delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't throw accusations, I simply stated a fact, the user was blocked for socking in another project for trying to create this, and that's a fact, such facts about the creators of articles can sometimes be relevant and noteworthy.
 * COI/promo tone of the article is not an accusation "thrown in without evidence" either, that's my comment about the state of the article. Stating such concerns is not "clearly inappropriate" (and it's not the first time such concerns have been stated about the same user, from December: Special:Diff/1191063344) Tehonk (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete - As I told here as a person who reviewed (by its lexical meaning) the article both in Turkish and in English, sources didn't seem to be "satisfying since they were either primary or not 'about' the subject, such as listing the subject's name or mentioning incidentally". So I agree with the nominator, Tehonk, and Styyx above. Dr. CoalMessage 14:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Dr. Coal, please do not continue to misquote me, this is the second time. The link you provided is a selective excert from an old version. The full version should have been cited, not selective parts. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear ,
 * I cited what I wrote and it was really not that important since I've told here what I had to say. Full version is irrelevant after a point and would cause users' time to get wasted for nothing relevant to this discussion. could also want to delete it from their talk page, so I wanted to provide a permanent link if there would be anyone concerning the whole matter. (If there are, they would also check the latter versions, I presume.) Anyways, this might be the right version to cite if you want your response to be included.
 * There is no need for high tension, and presumption of malice.
 * Best,
 * Dr. CoalMessage 14:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * weakish delete, professorship is still too early-career, and it's alarming that ref 12, which I checked quickly to see if the top-2%-influential claim held water, doesn't seem to mention the subject. I admit I don't know how aerospace does orders of authorship, but it doesn't seem to be alphabetical, so if it's the traditional "first author did the work, last author is the professor" order, then the fact that most of the publications are middle-author doesn't give us much clue about the subject's independent academic record. We need a better demonstration of meeting NPROF, otherwise this could be a TOOSOON. Elemimele (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. As far as I can tell the "most influential listing" placed him in position 200000 or so among some set of researchers. That doesn't seem especially noteworthy to me. That leaves his actual citation record, on which I see only two triple-digit citation counts (on Google Scholar), one of which is first-author and one of which is middle position among many authors. That's a good start, but not really enough to base a keep decision on, and beyond publicity from his employer that seems to be all we have. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. As far as I can tell the "most influential listing" placed him in position 200000 or so among some set of researchers. That doesn't seem especially noteworthy to me. That leaves his actual citation record, on which I see only two triple-digit citation counts (on Google Scholar), one of which is first-author and one of which is middle position among many authors. That's a good start, but not really enough to base a keep decision on, and beyond publicity from his employer that seems to be all we have. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 27 February 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.