Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Smith Professor of Corporate Governance


 * 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. Two arguments are made for the retention of this article, both directly about its content's notability and LISTN, but in any case, there is consensus for a Keep Nosebagbear (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Adam Smith Professor of Corporate Governance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability is not WP:INHERITED from its two holders being bluelinks; single non-independent source is an administrative document from within the university. Reywas92Talk 04:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 04:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I do not believe all endowed chairs, nor even all Oxbridge endowed chairs, to be automatically notable. But in this case there's enough of a scandal related to the endowment (and in fact directly involving it), reported in-depth from newspapers at the time and in at least one book years later, to meet WP:GNG. I have added sources about that to the article. (I also added a source for the rename but it is non-independent and does not count towards notability.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the sources added pass WP:SIGCOV of the topic, all coverage is in regards to the much larger scandal of Dennis Kozlowski and his having made a donation, not the professorship itself. Suitable mention should be made at that article, Cambridge Judge Business School, and/or Robert A. G. Monks. Reywas92Talk 06:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is flat-out false. The Guardian source I added is entirely about the donation of money for the chair, the THE source has it in the title and covers more about the donation than the scandal itself, and although the third source is primarily about other topics (a whole book!) it includes significant detail about the connection of the scandal with this chair. The donation is the chair. That's what an endowment is. The scandal is something more complicated, covered better by other sources, but these sources are about the endowment of the chair. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to the sources already in the article, the specific matter of Cambridge having to decide about what to do with the tainted endowment was picked up by The Independent and The Daily Telegraph . I think the available sourcing supports a stand-alone article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTN, as two or more people have held this chair. ミラP 21:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ミラP 21:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. on thebasis of both the two arguments directly above.  DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2020 (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.