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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selçuk özdemir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable autobiography (the main contributor being User:Selcukozdemir) with no sourcing. CyberGhostface (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Originally was a pure online CV, I csd'd it, and an admin rejected it, inexplicably. I therefore prod'd it, another admin supported the prod. The user removed the prod tags, and did, admittedly, edit it to be less CV-like. Still a totally non-notable person, therefore I csd'd it again. CSD declined for 'procedural reasons' as it was a 2nd. --  Chzz  ►  04:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. According to his web page he's an assistant professor with a recent (2005) Ph.D.; although it's possible for someone at that level to already be notable for their academic achievements, it's unusual, and I don't see any signs of it in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--no sign of passing WP:Prof. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:PROF with no WP:RS at all. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails WP:PROF. Much as I hate trying to judge that criterion, in this case it seems rather obvious. --GedUK  08:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete David Eppstein says it all, does not meet WP:ACADEMIC and will take a while before he gets there. --Crusio (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like a vanity article. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Salih (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:PROF, WP:BIO, and WP:N straight out. — neuro^(talk) 23:58, 27 February 2009 (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.