- 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 speedy keep. Clear consensus to keep. Tone 09:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Sabrina P. Ramet
- Sabrina P. Ramet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability per WP:ACADEMIC. Nothing stated but a professor with a list of publications. Owen ( talk) 17:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy and decisive KEEP: absurd AFD, see selected Ramet bibliography below:
- Nationalism and Federalism in Yugoslavia, 1963-1983 (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1984)
- Nationalism and Federalism in Yugoslavia, 1962-1991, 2nd ed. (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1992)
- Cross and Commissar: The Politics of Religion in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1987)
- The Soviet-Syrian Relationship since 1955: A Troubled Alliance (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1990)
- Social Currents in Eastern Europe: The Sources and Meaning of the Great Transformation (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1991); 2nd ed. 1995
- Balkan Babel: Politics, Culture, and Religion in Yugoslavia (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1992)
- Balkan Babel: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia from the Death of Tito to Ethnic War, 2nd ed. (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1996)
- Balkan Babel: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia from the Death of Tito to the War for Kosovo, 3rd ed. (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1999)
- Balkan Babel: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia from the Death of Tito to the Fall of Milosevic (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2002)
- Whose Democracy? Nationalism, Religion, and the Doctrine of Collective Rights in Post-1989 Eastern Europe (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997) — named an Outstanding Academic Book for 1997 by Choice magazine
- Nihil Obstat: Religion, Politics, and Social Change in East-Central Europe and Russia (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1998)
- Thinking about Yugoslavia: Scholarly Debates about the Yugoslav Breakup and the Wars in Bosnia and Kosovo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)
- The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918—2005 (Bloomington, Ind. & Washington D.C.: Indiana University Press & The Wilson Center Press, 2006)
- The Liberal Project & the Transformation of Democracy: The Case of East Central Europe (College Station, Tex.: Texas A&M University Press, 2007)
- Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia at Peace and at War: Selected Writings, 1983—2007 (Berlin & Münster: Lit Verlag, 2008)
Quis separabit? 17:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)- From WP:Academic: "Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are." Owen ( talk) 17:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- That is true. It is the number of citations to the subject's works, as seen by the Google Scholar search linked above, that makes notability obvious. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly passes WP:PROF criterion 1. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 18:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- "She is a Professor of Political Science at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim." (per article), but let's say she clearly passes the
WP:ACADEMIC and
WP:AUTHOR criteria. Again, this is an absurd AFD.
Quis separabit? 20:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would ask that you observe
WP:CIVIL. Calling this nomination "absurd" again and again does not show how Ramet meets the
WP:ACADEMIC criteria. Being a professor is not the litmus test established there. Which of the nine listed criteria are met? I don't see how any of them are shown within the context of the article as it currently stands.
Owen (
talk) 21:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that the editor signing "Quis separabit?" could have worded things a bit better, but would also point out that notability is an attribute of the subject of the article, not of the article as it currently stands. I'm rather shocked that such a long-standing administrator doesn't understand that fundamental point about the way that Wikipedia works, and, if I could be bothered, would make a proposal that admins should have to go through reconfirmation after a number of years.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 22:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The editor who signs as "Quis separabit?" (and whose user name is "[email protected]") is not an administrator, and I don't know how you got the impression that he or she is one. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 09:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)I now see that this comment was based on a misreading. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 12:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that the editor signing "Quis separabit?" could have worded things a bit better, but would also point out that notability is an attribute of the subject of the article, not of the article as it currently stands. I'm rather shocked that such a long-standing administrator doesn't understand that fundamental point about the way that Wikipedia works, and, if I could be bothered, would make a proposal that admins should have to go through reconfirmation after a number of years.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 22:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would ask that you observe
WP:CIVIL. Calling this nomination "absurd" again and again does not show how Ramet meets the
WP:ACADEMIC criteria. Being a professor is not the litmus test established there. Which of the nine listed criteria are met? I don't see how any of them are shown within the context of the article as it currently stands.
Owen (
talk) 21:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- "She is a Professor of Political Science at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim." (per article), but let's say she clearly passes the
WP:ACADEMIC and
WP:AUTHOR criteria. Again, this is an absurd AFD.
Quis separabit? 20:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Nine publications listed by Google scholar as having more than 100 citations is a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and membership in two prestigious Norwegian learned societies is a double pass of #C3. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as above. Bizarre and timewasting AfD nomination. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC).
- Keep. In addition to the citation record and the national academy memberships, her works have been widely reviewed in reliable sources ( WP:AUTHOR). I will add some of that to her article. As an example, in a 2006 book review in The American Historical Review, the reviewer called her "undoubtedly the most prolific scholar of the former Yugoslavia writing in English" (though the review was otherwise pretty harsh). EricEnfermero ( Talk) 02:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per the rationales of users David Eppstein and EricEnfermero above. North America 1000 09:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep what a waste of time. Thanks to EricEnfermero and others for confirming that this is obvious. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:02, 6 January 2017 (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.