Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. I. Taylor Professor of Fluid Mechanics


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

G. I. Taylor Professor of Fluid Mechanics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability is not WP:INHERITED from some of its holders being bluelinks; non-independent sources are from within the department and don't provide substantive coverage. Reywas92Talk 04:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 04:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I found and added two sources to the article, one about Batchelor fund-raising for the endowment and another about Saffman turning down the chair. I think they may be a little too in-passing for WP:GNG, but others could reasonably disagree. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to a "Legacy" section in G. I. Taylor. There's a little more to say about the professorship than it existing, but not enough to warrant a dedicated article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTN, as two or more people with enwiki articles have held this chair. ミラP 21:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hogwash, there is no free reign for automatic notability of separate articles for any concept for which you have two bluelinks. No part of LISTN states this utter fabrication. Which "independent reliable sources" "discuss [it] as a group or set"??? Reywas92Talk 22:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not necessary, WP:LISTN says, emphasis mine, that this is just [o]ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable, and that those that fulfill recognized [...] navigation [...] purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. And please take it to only one AFD at a time. ミラP 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Two or more" bluelinks is not a navigational purpose superseding any expectation for independent sources covering the topic. You are twisting these words, which link to Manual_of_Style/Lists and clearly reduces the need for sources for pages like outlines and lists of lists, not for bestowing an article on any concept that people can theoretically use to move from one article to another. Forget the GNG and all the rest, right? It has two links, call it a list, and it's good – AFD or even ATD be excepted! We've got List of University of Cambridge people if you want navigation, or a list people affiliated with Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge or what have you. Reywas92Talk 23:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a position that implies unquestioned notability for every holder. There will therefore be multiple articles, and that justifies a list. If some do not yet have blue links, that's just a reminder we need to write the articles.The concept of holding the chair is a distinguishing characteristic of the highest order, as possibly the greatest academic honour in this field in the world, considering the central role  of Cambridge in devlelopment of applied mathematics and related subjects.  DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC).
 * If this is "the greatest academic honour in this field in the world" then where are the independent sources??? Cambridge has 250 named professorships, the thousands of universities in the world have tens of thousands of endowed chairs. Anything that touches these hallowed halls has WP:INHERITED notability then? The concept that these are automatically notable is preposterous. Reywas92Talk 23:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. There may well be many endowed chairs around the world, any university could make up a name for a chair to big it up. However this one 3 out of four holders have an FRS and it was created by Batchelor the founding head of DAMPT, so among those created in to last few decades this one really has a claim to be notable. One would expect the history of a notable endowed chair to appear in news and historical sources and this one indeed does. Billlion (talk) 23:08, 24 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)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect per XOR'easter. I agree with the nominator that the arguments for notability as a list are unconvincing: what would be needed is not that the list contains notable objects, but that it is notable as a collection, and there is no evidence presented that this is the case. --JBL (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:53, 7 February 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.