Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute Professor


 * 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. Please defer merge discussions to the article talk page. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Institute Professor
A title used at one academic institution; not at all notable. The contents of this article include a three-sentence definiton (Wikipedia is not a dictionary) followed by a list of people who hold the title, the latter of which is sufficiently covered at List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people (I copied the definition over to that page).
 * Delete as nominator. Kane5187 00:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not some obscure community college; it's a place where no one gets this title without being more than sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article.  Many articles exist on notable professors at MIT who are not Institute Professors; it seems absurd to consider them more notable than those who are. Michael Hardy 00:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment First off, I did sign this nomination, in writing "Delete as nominator" for the first recommendation. Next, the implication of this AfD is not that the people who hold this title are not notable, just that an entire article on the title itself is not notable. Honestly, beyond the short definition and list of people, what else could possibly be added to the article? This really can't expand beyond a dictionary definition. And furthermore, what stands to be gained by maintaining this article alongside List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people, where all the same information resides? What makes that second article insufficient enough to merit this one? Kane5187 01:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "what else could possibly be added...?" is rash. The history of the title, the process by which these persons are appointed, the politics of appointments, the duties of Institute Professors (Isidore Singer told me that he has "no formal duties" (although he was required to write an annual report on his professional activities; I presume this includes research papers published in journals, seminar talks, courses taught (he's not required to teach, but of course that doesn't automatically mean he doesn't), etc.), salaries, perhaps as compared with other professors, effects of conferring of this title (have the the professors become more productive in research because they don't have any "formal duties" such as teaching, or less, because they're more secure than they were?), etc.  Many more things can be said! Michael Hardy 01:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Fair enough, but the fact remains that none of that information is here yet. As of right now, this page is redundant with List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people. New pages are created to expand on a topic when the information in a broader article grows too large and unwieldy, not preemptively with the expectation or hope that expansion will occur later on. This article is nearly three years old; it's not like it's a young creation that hasn't yet been given a chance to bloom. I suspect that if the information you suggest including was already available from a reliable source, it would have been included by now; that it hasn't indicates to me that there aren't many or any sources available that comment on those aspects of this professorship. Consequently, I don't think that we should hang around with this article hoping that such sources will crop up. Kane5187 01:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge &mdash; although the Institute Professors themselves are no doubt notable, I find it hard to see why the title itself is worth an article. A mention in the article on the professors, of course, and a sentence in the list of faculty and/or the MIT article, seem sufficient.  Plus, I would add a Category:MIT Institute Professors as a subcategory of Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty.  As a test of notability, a simple question: is there any article on the title per se (rather than one of the professors) from a source other than MIT?  (Full disclosure: I am MIT faculty.)  —Steven G. Johnson 01:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is deleted, then a paragraph comprising this information should be added to Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Michael Hardy 01:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the reasons listed above. Although, I think it makes sense to add a heading for Institute Professors at the List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people page (with the possibility of these people being listed in the separate category also). -- Superdosh 03:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. My understanding is that "Institute Professor" is short for "Massachusetts Institute of Technology Institute Professor" such that every person who is one is notable yet all information on the title can fit in a subsection at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. WAS 4.250 03:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, MIT has been a vanguard in the management of academia staff, and this is of general interest. Besides, there are many articles which link to this page, we need a standalone article to describe this title. I hope the article can be expanded to describe how the Institute Professors are selected and what benefits they enjoy. --Vsion 04:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The large number of pages that link here actually do so because of Template:MITtemplate; very few pages actually link normally. Kane5187 11:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Close enough to notable.-Kmaguir1 06:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Institute Professorship is considered as a great honor at MIT and certainly an important concept for MIT academic life. þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If this was the MITwiki, then sure -- but this article should be notable within the realm of all knowledge, not just MIT's corner of the universe. It's an honor at MIT and an important concept for MIT, but I don't see how it's notable in the larger picture. Kane5187 21:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unless you intend to delete the article on Academy Awards, since some of the winners were not all that notable. Gzuckier 16:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally not comparable, and the notability of the winners is not the issue here as explained above. The academy awards, Nobel prizes, and similar awards are widely known in and of themselves and have numerous sources about those awards in general (not just about specific award winners).  —Steven G. Johnson 18:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, The people are, on the whole, noteable enough and the distinction is held in high regard both at MIT and beyond -- if only for its exclusivity within a top tier institution. This shouldn't go away but I wouldn't be upset with a decision to merge with another appropriate article either. --mako (talk•contribs) 17:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. What, are we running out of server space? If even a few people think this is a keep, that should prove that there is enough interest for this to be an article. If college a cappella groups get their own articles, then this seems fair. I can imagine somebody reading about so and so being an "Institute Professor" at MIT and it would be nice to look up. It would also be nice to be able to link to this article from the articles of such professors. Perhaps it should be extended a bit, but how could one object to its existence? Too encyclopedic??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birge (talk • contribs) 13:05, August 28, 2006
 * Comment By nominating this for deletion, I am not suggesting that the topic itself is unimportant or unencyclopedic, or that mention of it should be excised from Wikipedia. I'm just saying that there isn't any information about it on its own page that isn't covered elsewhere (e.g. at List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people). It's redundant, and keeping this page merely clutters up Wikipedia. If this article is deleted, none of its content will be deleted as it all is sufficiently covered at other pages. Kane5187 21:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's redundant in the sense you're pointing out, it doesn't have to stay that way. More information can be added that could be inappropriate for those other articles.  If that were done, would you change your mind? Michael Hardy 23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment As I pointed out above, this article is three years old and it has still yet to go beyond a three-sentence defintion. If such information existed from reliable sources, I'm pretty sure it would have been included here by now. We don't create articles with the vague hope that they will expand beyond a simple definition and list someday in the distant future. Information could be added, but until it is, this article's existence is redundant. When the definition/history/duties of the position get to be unwieldy over at List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people, that's when you branch off and create a separate article. Kane5187 01:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I was surprised to see how many pages link to this one!  Is there a policy or conventional norm according to which that should be taken into account in deciding whether to keep an article?  Here' another data point:  I googled "institute professor" (in quotes, so it's an exact match) and found about 268,000 hist, of which the Wikipedia page titled Institute Professor was the very first one!  (Some of the others were things like "Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Professor Will Develop New ...", where the parsing would be "{Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute} professor). Michael Hardy 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. Template links.  OK.  Still, the google result is interesting. Michael Hardy 18:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's interesting enough for Wikipedia, in my opinion.  Julius.kusuma 20:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "Interesting" isn't a qualification for inclusion on Wikipedia; could you please address the concerns of notability, redundancy with List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people, and lack of verifiable sources that would allow expansion? Kane5187 21:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What about the Wikipedia article titled Joseph Pellegrino University Professor? Michael Hardy 23:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment After a quick glance, it should probably be merged into an appropriate article (e.g. if something analogous to Harvard University academic posts exists, and if there are numerous similar appointments to fill out that proposed page). But this AfD shouldn't rely on other examples. Kane5187 01:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, it appears this whole argument is moot, since somebody (I) was kind enough to add information, at long last, to the article. So, it's no longer redundent. We can all go home now. Birge 01:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment While I appreciate your efforts, this does nothing to address to the concern of notability, provides no reason why we can't move your added material over to the introduction line at List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people, and doesn't seem to cite its sources. Kane5187 11:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Commen Good god, man, what do you have against this article? Did an Institute Professor kill your uncle? ;-) I have no idea how to address notability. Not every article in an encyclopedia is as notable as others, but I think it's fair to assume that anybody who reads about an IP might be interesting in knowing what that is. Now, as for why we can't move over material on the details of IP: if you were interested in finding out what IP means, would you expect to find it in a List of MIT People? No, you wouldn't. You'd probably hope there were an article on IP. Heck, you might not even know that IP is an MIT thing. As for not citing sources, I did mention which MIT document the information is from in the text. I just didn't bother to find an online reference. I should do that. But do you've been saying all along the whole problem is redundency of information. That's been solved with what I think is useful information. Birge 16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have anything against this article, and I take exception to the idea you imply that I am just coming up with reasons to oppose its existence: while redundancy of information is important, the first sentence in my proposal deals with the issue of notability. In that regard, you seem to think that an abstract person who might "hope there were an article on IP" makes this article's subject notable. Please read WP:N: "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact." I think that the MIT community would definitely be considered a narrow group, and I can't imagine that the subject of an institute professor would be of importance to anyone who isn't an MIT student or faculty member. Besides, under Professor, there is a quick list of these types of appointments, because they vary by institution and don't each deserve separate treatment. I support its deletion because it serves no purpose but to clutter up Wikipedia andto repeat information already available at List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people and Professor, and because neither Wikipedia nor its users have anything to gain by keeping it. Kane5187 20:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said. -- Superdosh 20:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The thing is, you do keep changing what you focus on. If somebody argues that it's notable, you say the big problem is that it's redundent. And when I point out that it's easy to fix the redundency, than all of a sudden your biggest problem is that it's not notable. Well, if something is worth putting in the MIT People list, than it's worth putting in the correct place. If you think having information about what an Institute Professor is is worth having SOMEWHERE in Wikipedia, than I think it's worth having as its own short article to make it easy to find. And it's interesting beyond the MIT community (though perhaps not for many people, but then again neither is Group Theory) for the same reason Harvard's presidential antics are of interest to people outside Harvard. I think there's a vast difference between the Morris Schmenkman professorship at the Southern Glouchester Vocational College and Community Reading Room and Institute Professor at MIT, because the latter comes up in other articles because of the stature of those involved. All such professors are worthy of their own articles, and those articles will probably mention their position as IPs. It would be nice to have a link to an explanation of what IP is and why it means something rather than a link to the MIT People page, don't you think? Birge 21:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see how that's any nicer than a piped link like this one that goes directly to the definition and list of IPs at MIT. Basically, the difference is the title of the page, and I have much fewer notability qualms about List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people. Again, I point you back to the definition of notability. You say that this article can "interesting beyond the MIT community," which is absolutely true, but WP:N involves information that is known or should be known beyond a small community; very different from being found interesting by others. I highly doubt that the title of Institute Professor is well-known beyond MIT, and I would be surprised if that title has any importance or impact beyond the school, either (being careful to distinguish between the professors who hold the title and the title itself; I know that a professor having such a title might have impact). I think that this information is worth keeping "somewhere" on Wikipedia because it is important within the context of MIT professors and MIT itself, and so would be perfectly acceptable as a section in such an article. Regarding focus: of course I have changed subject based on what people have cited when objecting to the deletion. That's called responding to their specific ideas and making direct counterarguments, not trying to weasel out of the argument. I defy you to show me an example of my saying that any one issue with this article is "the big problem" as you claim. If someone votes "Keep" because they find it notable, then I remind them that that isn't the only problem I noticed and I ask them to address the other ones. You did a good job in adding more information to reduce redundancy, but I also ask you about eliminating notability problems. I'm waiting for a good solution that solves all the problems I brought up, and when one appears in a satisfactory fashion, I will change my vote to Speedy Keep and withdraw the nomination. If any of the problems remain unsolved, then this article qualifies for deletion. Kane5187 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok, looking at the notability page I think I'm starting to be swayed, especially by the fact that there are really no articles elsewhere on institute professorship that aren't directly from MIT, which makes an NPOV difficult. So, while personally I think it's a good article to have, I do agree that it's a close call with regard to some of the criteria for notability provided my Wikipedia (which are often contradictory, I should point out). I think you're wrong about it being of no importance, but I do agree there isn't enough outside information on it. So, I guess my problem is with Wikipedia, which seems content to always being behind the ball on any subject given that they will only consider something notable if a bunch of other sources already cover it, as well. But given my current ambivalence about this, I'll switch my vote to merge. Is it considered fair to delete one's own vote? Birge 02:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment People change their votes all the time. Generally, they don't just delete it, they strike it out (putting and around it) so that the record of voting is kept (see how Steven G. Johnson changed from Delete to Merge above). Kane5187 11:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment MIT is not a "narrow interest group" even if MIT is narrow (in the sense of having only 10,000 students and fewer faculty).  An "interest group" can consist of all persons interested in a particular topic.  But many more people would be interested in this topic than just the members of this "narrow" group. Michael Hardy 21:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see my response to Birge above on notability; it does not deal with people "interested" in something, it deals with whether people know or should know about the subject because of its importance. Kane5187 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're splitting hairs. When I say someone is "interested" in something, I mean the same thing as if I'd said it is important to them and they should know about it. Michael Hardy 23:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not splitting hairs, I am pointing out an important distinction that you keep missing. This does not deal with whether something is important to somebody, it deals with whether it is objectively important in general and consequently should be known by people in general. I recommend you read WP:N carefully before returning to this discussion. Kane5187 00:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Add two more sourced paragraphs and I think its a keep. By the way, altho sources that are on the web are more useful, sources are still sources even if they are dusty books on a shelf. They only must be widely available to the public to count as a source, so a handout not even at an MIT library doesn't count and a source only found in Massechusetts (eg at an MIT library) is questionable. WAS 4.250 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Dylan wrote "I can't imagine that the subject of an institute professor would be of importance to anyone who isn't an MIT student or faculty member." That's just silly.  Dylan's lack of ability to imagine things is of no interest or relevance to this discussion.  There are perfectly obvious reasons why persons not affiliated with MIT would have use for this information. Michael Hardy 23:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Saying "I imagine" is obviously a rhetorical device, and you are again missing the point. People could certainly "have use for" the details of my own life: friends, family, employers, coworkers, and classmates, to name a few. But the reason why I have a Facebook account instead of a Wikipedia biography is because I'm not a notable individual in the larger world. This has nothing to do with anybody finding information about title of Institute Professor interesting or enlightening or intriguing or useful. It has to do with whether the title is important or relevant to the average reader. That the only sources provided are MIT publications suggests to me that this is certainly an important subject to people at MIT, but not to anyone else. Kane5187 00:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The average reader? Why the average reader?  Why not the reader interested in academia or in MIT?  Most of the math articles are probably not of interest to the average reader.  Should we delete them all? Michael Hardy 02:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I was using the phrase "the average reader" to try to make it simpler to understand, but in retrospect it was a rather misleading term. The idea is that the subject needs to be important in general, to the world as a whole. Mathematics articles like Group theory are important in general because a variety of mathematicians have studied it, there are numerous and diverse academic papers and books on it, and because it's generally acknowledged by the scientific community to be a significant area of study. Other mathematics articles that might not bear the same widespread acknowledgement might still be notable because they are considered a groundbreaking if burgeoning area of research. You keep coming back to this criterion of the subject being "of interest to" somebody. No matter how interesting the title of Institute Professor or, or how much it is of interest to some people, I still have not seen anyone in the AfD put forth a good reason why or how it has been considered to be notable beyond Cambridge. If it were, I would expect non-MIT sources to have commented on it, or at least an MIT source to do so beyond a cursory definition (none of the provided external links do more than that). Kane5187 11:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Beyond Cambridge" there are people interested in the geography of academia. Let's say a clerical assistant to the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Somewhere is writing to Professor X at MIT to invite him to speak at the commencement.  Might it not be useful for the assistant to know whom he's writing to and understand what Professor X's title of "Institute Professor" means?  Then a journalist writing about Professor X's forthcoming appearance as the speaker would find it useful too.  Do you think no one at other institutions ever communicates with anyone at MIT? Michael Hardy 20:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought my ability to imagine "let's say" and "might it...be" hypotheticals was of no relevance to this AfD. You are suggesting times when it would be useful to know what an Institute Professor is. I am challenging you to give reasons why this title is important outside of MIT, why this title has an enduring impact beyond MIT. Kane5187 20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I said you inability to imagine such things is of no interest (you had asserted that you lack any such ability). I gave some reasons for importance to people outside of MIT.  Why do you then assert that I did not? Michael Hardy 20:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I say that because you gave scenarios when it would useful to know what an IP is, not why the title is important. If friend that I went to high school with might want to contact me, knowing my address would be useful, but not make my address important in the real world. I don't know why you cannot understand that distinction; I really have no way of distilling the explanation any further. Important is different from useful. We are looking for an article that is important in the world in general, not just useful to anyone. FAQ lists, instruction manuals, and travel guides are all useful, but they are prohibited from Wikipedia. Just because someone, somewhere might have use for this information does make it a Keep. Kane5187 11:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand very well. You're the one who's failing to understand.  Your friend's phone number is useful to you but not to the public.  Usefulness to the public entails "importance" and "notability" in the present sense.  This information is useful, not just to some specific person that we can now identify, but to many who may some day be situated as in my examples or otherwise will be navigating their way through academia. Michael Hardy 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentScenario1: somebody searching Wikipedia: "Damn! They included Institute Professor! I hate Wikipedia" Scenario2: somebody searching Wikipedia: "Thank God! They deleted Institute Professor! This is a lot better now." Gzuckier 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia's notability policy is not based on imagining future users' reactions to AfDs. I agree that both of your provided scenarios are rather unlikely, but pleasing or displeasing users is not what we are here to do. Kane5187 20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no official notability policy! Quit dishonestly implying there is. In fact, this whole issue of notability is up for debate, so it's not fair for you to invoke some sort of "policy" which doesn't exist while dismissing others' reasons as not relevent. In the end, we should be bound by our good judgement, given that there is no hard and fast rule for notability, nor is it an official policy. Birge 08:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That's true, but the concept of notability has very widespread acceptance among editors and while not considered "official" by the Foundation, is a guideline accepted by most. I didn't mean to imply that we were bound by a holy, official rule, but virtually every Wikipedia editor recognizes it is an important guideline for editing. The concept of notability appears multiple times in What Wikipedia is not (which is official policy) and is generally considered an extension of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." No one would hestitate to delete a well-written, NPOV, cited article about the fire hydrant in front of my house because it isn't official policy to do so. I apologize if my arguments mislead you in that direction; I honestly didn't mean to do so. Hopefully the fact that I linked WP:N multiple times (and encouraged people to read it) might suggest that I wasn't attempting to conceal the actual classification of the concept. Kane5187 11:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is, the concept of notability may have widespread acceptance, but the definition does not, nor is it at all accepted as applied towards deciding to keep an article versus merge it. I accept that you weren't trying to decieve people, but it certainly appeared that you were when the title of your link to the notability essay was "notability policy" when it's not policy. In fact, that same page lists both sides of the debate, and draws no final conclusions. In the end, I'm not sure what the problem is. You argue that it's not notable enough for it's own article, but is notable enough to have somewhere in Wikipedia. You say that it will clutter wikipedia, but if the information is going to be in wikipedia regardless, isn't it less cluttered if it's organized into its own article, where people are free to ignore it and will never come upon it unless they follow a link or search for it? To me, it seems that wikipedia is best served by dividing things into more, rather than fewer, articles, because that keeps information better organized and less overwhelming. There's no reason we should divide Wikipedia like a paper encyclopedia, since search and linking is instantaneous. Birge 18:19, 31 August 2006 (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.