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. ✗plicit 02:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Eurasian Studies

[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)

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 · c) buidhe 21:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Armenia and Turkey. (t · c) buidhe 21:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Buidhe
https://balkangunlugu.com.tr/tuerkiyenin-dueuence-kurulular-ankarada-topland/	?	?	Passing mention in a list of think tanks	✘ No
https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/72461/RSC%202021_70.pdf?sequence=1 "Robert Schuman Center"		? Working papers are not always RS	No results for "AVIM", "ASAM", "Eurasian Studies", or other monikers for the article topic	✘ No
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.11.4.0533			Cites AVIM as a source... once.	✘ No
https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/teoman-ertugrul-tulun/the-steady-rise-of-the-far-right-in-sweden-136813 (the one listed as "Istituto Affari Internazionali")	?	Opinion pieces are not RS	?	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230921084636/https://miar.ub.edu/issn/1306-9136	?		database entry, no significant coverage	✘ No
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0JyhRP6te3sEcAA4Y2Cb3PNoKGvTJ7waQmPxN61UTymZtATK9poigPGvW2MyBwGdFl&id=100064101942956&mibextid=Nif5oz	Facebook post about the source's collaboration with the think tank, equivalent to a press release	?	?	✘ No
https://accentnews.ge/en/article/104978-viktor-qipianma-evraziis-kvlevebis-centrtan-avim	No intellectual independence, looks like reprint of a press release	?	no in depth discussion of AVIM as required by WP:NORG	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Added three new sources from Agos Newspaper, Euronews, Kıbrıs Postası (Cyprus Mirror), Organization of Turkic States. Tetulun (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete - per
WP:SIGCOV as noted above. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2024 (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.