Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Çetin Balanuye

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. ✗plicit 14:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Çetin Balanuye

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I examined all of the Turkish sources. Bahcesehir, Akdeniz, and balanuye net sources are not independent. Remained news sources do not provide significant information about the person. Kadı Message 19:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Literature, Philosophy, and Turkey. Kadı Message 19:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kadı. Thanks for the warnings. I think there are several statements in the page that needs to be omitted. (Some unnecessary info about the academic background and some unncessarily long descriptions about one of the books, tenets etc. What else? Otherwise references seem valid to me. I would appreciate it if you could suggest something further to improve. Best regards. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the sources you noticed: "Bahcesehir" comes from Turkish newspapers; "Akdeniz" is a state university and biographic info comes from the official WEB site of the university. For "Balanuye.net", yes you are right, it is not independent and needs to be erased. Would you aggree? Ortak.Conatus (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you aggree for the corrections of these kind please let me know so that I can work on it. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in its current state, the article has some problems regarding the NOPV and NOR policies. Yet, I think the subject of the article (i.e. the person in question) meets the notability criteria. Hence, rather than deleting it, I suggest modifying the article to make it compatible with NPOV and NOR policies. I think it should be radically shortened and cleaned up, freeing it from non-significant information. The new version should also be written using more neutral language. If it is OK, I am working on a draft and will submit it for discussion here. 78.190.240.85 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The discussion on trwiki has gained more traction that this one, where it's likely going to be deleted. I don't see any significant coverage from reliable and independent sources in the article, thus failing GNG. All of the independent sources are just mentions or interviews. The two comments above don't even have a policy-based explanation as to how this clears notability. Since the subject itself isn't notable, I don't see how a rewrite/trim will change anything. ~Styyx^Talk? 20:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. It lacks in-depth coverage. In this case, rewriting does not help it to pass notability criterias. --Assyrtiko (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The subject of the article (Çetin Balanuye) seems worthy of being an entry. His name is also in the references under the Spinoza article in En-Wiki. All of his books in the field of Spinoza have been reprinted in large numbers in Turkey. I think that the mistakes in the first article about the name should be eliminated and a short article should be preserved with better resources. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please check Çetin Balanuye for his contribution to Spinoza scholarship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_about_Baruch_Spinoza Ortak.Conatus (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "better sources". The article creator adding a link to here from List of works about Baruch Spinoza is irrelevant. You keep saying that the subject is notable, but are yet to make an argument as to how. ~Styyx^Talk? 12:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of his books (Spinoza'nın Sevinci Nereden Geliyor?) hits 10th edition in 5 years. The other book (Spinoza) has made 4 editions. Don't you think that if original books on Spinoza in Turkish have found as large readership as these books indicate some sort of notability? Ortak.Conatus (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To my best knowledge, there are no books in the field of philosophy in Turkish compared to this much large readership if they are not translations and-or commentaries. Perhaps someone can edit the entry in a more appropriate way in tune with Wiki policies? Why should we not give a chance? Ortak.Conatus (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of editing the article, fixing various WP:NPOV and WP:NOR issues. I also removed non-significant information that does little to improve the article. Please consider the revised version for further discussions.

As for the Notability issue, I agree that the subject should qualify as he is a very distinguished and arguably the most widely read original Spinoza scholar in Turkish. I remember various reviews about his book Spinoza's Joy commenting on its effects on the area. Should I try to find and add them as references? Would it be enough to clear the notability criteria? 78.190.240.85 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edition. It is compact, clear, and objective. Congratulations. I can also provide some resources confirming the positive impact and reception of the book entitled Spinoza's Joy? In any case, the entry looks acceptable in terms of Wiki rules and regulations. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read the current version of Cetin Balanuye entry. I think the candidate is one of the most read academics/philosophers in Turkey and he is worthy of being an entry. The edited version of the entry seems appropriate both for Wikipedia policies and in terms of the information and references it contains. I also think the article should be kept in its current form. flaneur (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, one sock wasn't enough and you had to create another one? ~Styyx^Talk? 06:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have added info and source about the editorial position of Cetin Balanuye: "Çetin Balanuye has been the editor-in-chief of the academic peer-reviewed journal "Ethos: Dialogues in Philosophy and Social Sciences" [ISSN 1309-1328] since 2008." Ortak.Conatus (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF and specifically the 8th criteria reads as: "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." May this new information help us settling with the notability issue?

Ortak.Conatus (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that a journal without secondary coverage about ut can be considered "major" or "well-established".

I think this is the point where I start to ask some questions, Ortak.Conatus.

The contributions of you, the IP address above, and Bohemiannnn (talk · contribs) on the English and Turkish Wikipedia are solely about the creation of Çetin Balanuye and the subsequent edits to deletion discussions on the respective projects, with both accounts being created around the same time, less than a month ago. This begs the obvious question: is there any conflict of interest or paid editing here?
Are you the same person as the aforementioned IP and account or are guys a few friends who want this article kept? Or is this just a pure coincidence that an IP and two brand-new accounts participate in the same AfD and that AfD only? Though, let me tell you in advance, if you pick the third option, no one is going to believe you.
This twitter account that shares the same name as one of the Wikipedia accounts has retweeted Balanuye a few times. Any connection to Conatus Academy or is that also pure coincidence?

Note that the article was deleted on the Turkish Wikipedia, which shares a very similar NPROF criteria with enwiki, per a deletion discussion. ~Styyx^Talk? 13:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sory, this is just nonsense! I have only one account (Ortak.Conatus) and have no idea about the other accounts you are talking about. You look too busy policing about the editors and their motivation behind keeping an entry for an author. Why not people are just devoted readers? Why don't you focus on the content? All denoted issues have been resolved one by one, but you still keep your bias. Now, perhaps it is time for you to answer: What makes you this much prejudiced of the subject? The fact that I am a new editor has nothing to do with the value of the comments, corrections and contributions I have been making for the given article. Please, try focusing on the content and stop being judgemental. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, now you say you doubt that the given Journal lacks the value of being well-established. Just read the journal's page. It has been published since 2008, been indexed by international indexes for years. Tons of scholars keep publishing with the journal. What else should one find to convince you that perpaps the content tells something true? Perhaps I am not a terrible person trying cheat you ? Would this be also possible? Ortak.Conatus (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know the questions are for your own sake right? If you do the things I described above, you have to disclose it. If you don't, and others figure out that you've been doing it, you're going to get blocked per the policy. It is normal for any editor to question your behaviour—creating an account just to participate in a discussion—because it's just suspicious. The fact that there is another account doing the same just adds up to it.

I have "focused on the content" in my first two messages, where I argue that the subject isn't notable, because I actually believe that the subject is non-notable. There is no prejudice in that. ~Styyx^Talk? 14:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right indeed. Since I am a new editor I also took your comments very seriously, learned from them. And I started reading through Wiki procedures. I understood your original objections, and that's why I tried to improve the content. If this is a sort of conflict-of-interest, I am a very devoted reader of Balanuye. In order not to be kept by subjective passion I researched the author. He is notable in many respects: He is one of the first original writer who made the name "Spinoza" accesible to millions in Turkey. Just read the comments, journals, citations about Spinoza's Joy. I thought this entry would be very valuable for other researchers trying to figure out their ways in philosophy. That's it. That simple. Otherwise I have no motivation to keep this discussion long. I only mean that I am here, in fact, as I have been taking your original objections very seriously. However, the article in the current form is completely free from any harm and perhaps valuable as an entry. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, besides everything I should thank you for helping Wiki community improve the content and make it more reasonable and humbler. I am very positive about this. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after major clean-up after AFD nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a minor player in his field of study. I don't see much for sourcing. COI and socking pretty much tells me he's not notable as those only tend to pop up when a deletion is close at hand. Otherwise, I see no substantial sources we can use to keep the article here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of independent and reliable sources, and the fact that the discussion over at trwiki was closed as delete as well. 0xDeadbeef 05:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.