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 no consensus - default to keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Markedonov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails each of the WP:PROF notability criteria. Being a department head does not make one a notable academic, and neither does having one's name appear in a smattering of newspapers, among them the propaganda outlet Tiraspol Times and the Moonie-owned Washington Times. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with nom and see no notability here via WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The guy's prophecies are all over the mainstream press, but there are no reliable and independent sources to pull together a basic biography. Treat him as just another face on TV: they come and go, if in doubt - delete. NVO (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Like the article says, he is a prominent expert and a leading commentator on Russian Caucasus. He has published regularly in respected academic journals (such as Russia in Foreign Affairs and Central Asia and The Caucasus Journal of Social and Political Studies) and is the head of a notable research NGO. He is probably on of the most interviewed experts on his area in the global media, and has appeared in respected publications such as New York Times, RIA Novosti, Moscow Times, etc. Offliner (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That he has published on this both in academic journals and in US newspapers does indeed indicate that he is an acknowledged expert in the subject. We do not need birthdate and education and the like--that sort of stuff is not why he is notable--he's notable for his work, and if we have information on it, we have enough information to write an article. It would be like omitting an Olympic athlete because we only had his sports records. His academic work does not :"come and go" and the NYT is neither owned by the moonies or in the service of Russian propaganda. DGG (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He didn't "publish" in the NYT; he was quoted briefly. Still fails Prof. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This man has several publications, and he was cited only three times. Does it prove that he is a notable academic? Consider a biologist who has ten publications and was cited only three times. Does it mean he is notable? To contrary, it means he is not. How about being cited 500 times? Even that does not show someone's notability. And remember that an editorial in NYT (written by unknown person) is not better than citation in a good scientific journal like Biochemistry.Biophys (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is in desperate need of improvement, but from available sources seems to me to meet WP:PROF criteria, in that he is regularly considered and used as an expert by the media.--Talain (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whether the subject passes WP:PROF or not may be irrelevant in this case. I think it is hard to argue that the subject does not pass WP:BIO, given the subject’s news coverage.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, he was cited 73 times (including self-citation) according to this google search. I know students and postdoctoral researches who were cited more. Biophys (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- fails both WP:ACADEMIC and general notability requirements. He's a minor talking head. We can't list all of those, and there'd be no encyclopedic reason to. If he does something notable then we can make an article about him. DreamGuy (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is not a minor talking head. He is "a prominent Caucasus specialist" (according to Washington Times), and "a leading commentator on Russia's Caucasian republics" (according to opendemocracy.net). Offliner (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can claim anyone is prominent. Neither of those sources are reliable for proving prominence... and in fact if that's the best you have I'd say the opposite is true. DreamGuy (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Eric Yurken's gnews - not ordinary google - search above. Many reliable news sources identify him as a prominent expert. WP:BIO or WP:PROF # 7 ( see note 14) applies. John Z (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then keep. Who cares?Biophys (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - highly significant person. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It's hard to find much biographical detail about him, making it hard to justify a pass of WP:BIO: the works cited above e.g. by Eric Yurken are mostly not about him, but by him. And I just cleaned out a lot of promotional content (works by him rather than about him, peacock language) from the article. But he does seem to pass WP:PROF #7: "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep. I am an inclusionist, and he does seem like somebody one may want to find some information on. If his views are biased or such, and there is referenced criticism, do add it - that's a better solution than deleting his bio, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 1 July 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.