Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Grigor Suny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Sr13 07:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Grigor Suny

Ronald Grigor Suny (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Appears to fail WP:PROF upon looking at the requirements. Also, no reliable sources, verifiability, and appears to be original research. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


  • This is definitely a non-notable and unnecessary article. There is a small amount of information about the man; and the information isn't stuff worth knowing even! I support the deletion wholly. Meldshal42 20:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- I'd also have to say that hes not a notable person. Not every professor, author, etc... deserves an article.Hajji Piruz 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Keep - as per everyone else.Hajji Piruz 03:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
comment: what about this[1] and this [2]Ateshi - Baghavan 20:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Not every professor is a full professor of political science at the University of Chicago, after previously having held a named full professorship of history and political science at University of Michigan, and a visiting Professor at Stanford-- all three for well over a century among the highest quality research universities in the world. Nor have they published 6 books, almost all by scholarly presses of the highest distinction. Chicago and Michigan appoint to their faculties, gives tenure, and promotes on the basis of peer evaluations of much great rigour and knowledgeability than WP can do--the profession establishes the notability, and we need only record the fact.
Not everyone is selected to write the 7 articles on his primary subject in the Brittanica as mentioned by Baghaven. Not everyone has the truly exceptional honour of being the editor of one of the volumes of the Cambridge History of Russia--this indicates that both academic and more popular publishes recognize him as a foremost authority on his subject, or edits 8 other collected works, again from the most important publishers. . DGG 00:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep based on his professorship and list of publications alone. All of that should be citeable pretty easily, and I'll get onto doing just that in the near future. Additionally, I believe he's one of the very few scholars writing in English about the South Caucasus, which would suggest that he's even more of a leading authority for those of us with no Russian, Armenian, Georgian or Azeri. Personal experience counts for roughly zero, but I know he's just about always written something useful on those countries. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Still searching for the real kickers, but at least three of his books are listed in this particular syllabus for a course on Central Asia and the Caucasus. Someone more knowledgeable on the US education system might want to check this to make sure of exactly what it all means. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG. A senior and very notable Professor. --Bduke 10:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - outstanding scholar, deserves a page here. Schwarzenkopf 23:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is one of contributors to encyclopedia Britannica, I think he is notable enough for an article. Grandmaster 05:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Highly notable person. It just doesn't happen to be well reflected in this article, so I understand the initial nomination. Clearly, the article needs a lot of work.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 21:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He is one of the top Sovietologists in the World. --Ulvi I. 06:55, 15 June 2007 (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.