Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herchel Smith Professorship of Pure Mathematics


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Herchel Smith Professorship of Pure Mathematics

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about a gift to Cambridge University that was used to endow a named professorship. So far, this named chair has had only a single holder, Ben Green, in contrast to other similar articles that can be found at Category:Mathematical chairs describing chairs that have existed for a much longer period of time and that have had many notable holders. This article was prodded, but User:Buridan removed the prod with a claim that named chairs at Cambridge are notable regardless of age; I don't believe this is true and I don't believe that Cambridge has any special merit in this regard. According to WP:PROF, holders of named chairs at Cambridge (or other research universities) are notable, but that notability isn't automatically inherited by the chair itself. To me it's as if we had separate articles for Terence Tao (one of Green's collaborators, a clearly notable mathematician) and Terence Tao's Fields Medal (not individually notable separate from Tao or from Fields medals more generally). I have no objection to separate articles concerning endowed chairs with a long history and multiple independently-notable holders of the chair, but this one seems below threshold to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I originally tagged this for lacking notability. I could not agree more with David Eppstein: Green is obviosuly notable, this chair isn't. As it may be expected that there will be other people occupying this chair in the future, redirecting this article to Ben J. Green is not an option. It would seem to me that very few named chairs will be notable in and of themselves (even the most notable of all, the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics has only a very brief article). --Crusio (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to List_of_professorships_at_the_University_of_Cambridge (and merge all other articles on Cambridge professorships listed there to that list, as well, except for Lucasian Professor of Mathematics.) (I've edited this remark because I've decided I agree with the points raised above.)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Gotta say that it looks to me that all such things at major universities are notable according to wp:prof. --Buridan (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As far as I can see, WP:ACADEMIC says that holders of a named chair are notable, nowhere does it say that the named chair itself is notable. Can you tell us where WP:PROF says differently? --Crusio (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —TerriersFan (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep provided it is clear that this is not a one-off chair for one holder, but a continuing chair. This is not an article on a bequest, but one on a named chair. I strongly hope that "merge all other articles on Cambridge professorships listed there to that list, as well, except for Lucasian Professor of Mathematics" does NOT happen as a result of this debate. It certainly would need more discussion. The existence of many other articles named there is indeed strong support for keeping this article. Named chairs at important universities are likely search terms and they can not easily be redirected anywhere useful. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  07:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it can be safely assumed that a named chair in this subject at this university with a permanent endowment will remain notable . I wouldn't extend it to a principle for use elsewhere, for a single holder.  I think all continuing chairs at truly famous universities in fields for which they are famous should have individual articles. Combination articles would be possible, but we have no established reliable way to link to sections of combination articles. DGG (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm in agreement with Crusio & David Eppstein. I would be for a merge to List_of_professorships_at_the_University_of_Cambridge (per S Marshall) if that list had content (it is merely a list, mostly redlinks).  I don't see how the Chair qualifies for WP:PROF, and think it would qualify for notability of it met the GNG.  A quick search    of independent RS coverage doesn't show the chair to be the subject of the coverage... but I am prepared to be swayed. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. And merge, per David Eppstein, Crusio, and Pete.Hurd.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article passes WP:NOTE and is therefore notable. We have a large number of individual articles on Cambridge professorships - see Category:Cambridge Professorships. This article is already listed in List_of_professorships_at_the_University_of_Cambridge, so a "merge" would be identical to a delete here - all content would be lost. The argument that this particular chair is not notable simply because it was established only 5 years ago does not hold water for me. How old must a chair be and how many holders must it have to become "notable" ? I see no sensible objective cut-off point here. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Question I'm sorry, but I don't see how this passes WP:N, could you perhaps explain your reasoning a bit for me? There are only two references here, both university related. While I agree that these are reliable sources and confirm the existence of the Chair (not that this was ever in doubt, of course), these sources are not independent and don't establish notability in my eyes. --Crusio (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer The benefactor was notable, the incumbent is notable, and the founding of the chair was extensively covered in the media because of the unusual size of the associated endowment. I have added two more news item sources (BBC and Telegraph) for good measure. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's helpful. However, the first part of your argument (notable benefactor and incumbent) goes against WP:NOTINHERITED. Regardless, the two sources that you added are indeed reliable, verifiable and independent. However, I think a case can be made that they are primarily about the benefactor, giving all kind of information about his life and accomplishments, on the occasion of his bequest. There is actually not that much information about the endowed chair in those articles. Personally, I would find it more logical to merge the fact of the bequest and the chair in the article on Herchel Smith and link to that article from the bio on the present incumbent (and any future successors). --Crusio (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as the reporter announcement states various other professorships also funded by Herchel Smith at Cambridge, I would like to move the article to Herchel Smith professorships and extend the scope to include information on the other professorships too. Gareth Jones (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There has always been a very limited number of named chairs in pure mathematics in Cambridge, historically the Rouse Ball, the Lowndean, and the Sadlerian, This is the fourth such chair and it is highly notable. Like the other three prestigious chairs, it has a special appointment panel within the University of Cambridge. Mathsci (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This chair is as close to permanent as almost any other human construct, and it is in the same category as earlier established Cambridge chairs. Indeed, it is not the naming that makes these chairs significant but that they are established (as opposed to one-offs for promotions or special initiatives). By the way, even named chairs sometimes have only modest endowments (unlike this one). Johnwishart (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Week Keep in the fullness of time this have more than one professor. If nothing else it serves as a useful node in the wikipedia web linking Cambridge chairs, Herchel Smith, Cambridge mathematics and Ben Green. One other option would be to merge into Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge. --Salix (talk): 07:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:N, WP:V, with non-trivial coverage in major news media (UK Telegraph & BBC NEWs) - also, as to notability, the bequest was the largest ever donated to the university. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2009 (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.