Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tun Razak Chair


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Tun Razak Chair

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No refs on the page, I don't see the level of independent RS which would show notability JMWt (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Malaysia,  and Ohio. JMWt (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep  Strong Keep - I added a few sources, and there are dozens more, but I have not seen sources that significantly cover the subject. Shoerack (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you are !voting keep if you are also saying there is not significant coverage as per the GNG. JMWt (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Essentially, WP:GNG isn't the only notability criteria we applied to the subject of a Wikipedia article. There is WP:SNG, and for academic-related subjects, we have WP:NPROF (WP:ACADEMIC). In fact, I have now changed my weak keep to a strong keep. Named academic chairs in major research universities are notable, per WP:NPROF. According to WP:NPROF, merely holding a named chair will satisfy WP:NPROF. Holding such a named chair confers notability, and this indicates that the chair itself is notable. Shoerack (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Well that's an argument I suppose. JMWt (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not following the logic here. WP:PROF is essentially a shortcut criterion, saying that if a person holds a named chair at a major research institution, they've done things that make them a kind of person we can have an article about. This doesn't translate to saying that the named chair itself is a topic that ought to have an article. If a person holds such a position, there's probably a lot to say about the person, but how much is there to say about the chair? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Short answer: In academia, named chairs are notable (or distinguished) positions. This is why it confers notability on its holder, per WP:NPROF#5. Shoerack (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Being "notable" in the colloquial sense isn't the same as notable for Wikipedia purposes, i.e., deserving of an article dedicated to it. They're related ideas, of course, but not synonymous. WP:PROF does not say that a person inherits article-worthiness from holding an article-worthy position. In fact, it doesn't say anything about whether or not we should have an article about the position. That's a judgment we have to make on different grounds. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It would amount to circular reasoning or argument to conclude that "a person inherits article-worthiness from holding an article-worthy position." I was making the direct opposite of this argument. In another context, if a music award such as the Grammy Award confers notability on musicians, then the Grammy Award is notable regardless of whether we should have a Wikipedia article on it or not. Shoerack (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You keep using the word "notability" to mean something other than what it means on Wikipedia. As a result, your arguments are fundamentally disconnected with how this site works. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Where was the word "notability" used in a way that suggested something other than what it means on Wikipedia? There had been multiple discussions where the consensus was that a "named chair position" in major academic universities is notable per WP:NPROF. Our late colleague, User:DGG (of blessed memory), participated in many of these discussions, including this. In this discussion, pointed out that We generally keep articles on historic named chairs.. I understand that case law may not apply, but past discussions and consensus have established that "named chair positions" in major academic institutions are presumed notable per WP:NPROF. Shoerack (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure any precedent established in the past applies to what is essentially a chair for a visiting professor. And the discussion you refer to was about a chair established in 1863, not 1980. 1980 may be "historic" in a strict sense, but not in the sense I was referring to in that discussion. I'm not expressing an opinion as to whether this article should be kept or not; just pointing out that the previous discussion you cite is not really relevant to this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Shoerack (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Reply to this: Where was the word "notability" used in a way that suggested something other than what it means on Wikipedia? When you said, the Grammy Award is notable regardless of whether we should have a Wikipedia article on it or not, for example, that is incomprehensible when interpreting notability in the Wikipedian sense of the word. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The "Grammy" is an example of a notable award that confers notability for singers that our policy specifically describes. So, I wasn't referring to a random award that I presumed it to be notable based on my personal opinion. Shoerack (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSICBIO is a guideline, not a policy. And the guideline says that people who win a Grammy are notable, not that the notability of the Grammy Award somehow hinges upon the fact that people who win it are notable. That would be bizarre and convoluted. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody actually advanced the argument that a guideline is a policy. Shoerack (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. People who hold a named chair pass WP:PROF, in situations where we can reasonably expect the chair to be given only for scholarly excellence. The purpose of this criterion is to provide another way to make sure that people known as excellent scholars get Wikipedia articles. That purpose and that notability criterion do not apply to articles about the chair itself, for which the only notability criterion is WP:GNG. We have no evidence of passing GNG (through in-depth coverage of the chair itself in published reliable sources) and in fact we have what appears to be an admission above that despite searching none were to be found. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment — There is a presumption of notability for named chairs. When any academic holds a named chair, we don't ask for sources to establish the notability of the named chair they hold; the academic is generally considered notable by virtue of that position. We don't require that the named chair itself meet WP:GNG to be considered notable. This is because named chairs are a specific type of honour reserved for notable scholars. This is not the same as the faculty dean's position. This is an established chair that has been held by scholars for more than three decades. That said, if a specific position confers notability, that position is notable. We have a long-standing consensus that established named chairs in major academic institutions meet WP:NPROF. In one of these discussions, there was an admission that "Personal chairs and research chairs pass WP:PROF#C5, named or not. Administrative chairs of departments do not.". Shoerack (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * NPROF is people. It does not apply to furniture (metaphorical or otherwise). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody said it does, and I have no idea where the furniture came from. The excerpt above is from your own admission that NPROF does apply to a named chair in major academic universities. I doubt that by "Personal chairs and research chairs pass WP:PROF#C5, named or not," you were referring to furniture. Were you? Shoerack (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to understand this discussion but I assume that when NPROF talks about a personal chair, that refers to the person (ie the professor) rather than the chaired position. The argument appears to be that if the "chaired Professor" is a criteria that shows an individual is notable per NPROF then the chair (ie the endowment/position itself) must also be notable.
 * The counter argument is that the chair (ie the "furniture" or endowment behind the chaired professorship) is not covered by NPROF. JMWt (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with others that NPROF covers professors, and not positions. A named chair might still meet GNG.  I am holding back on !voting for the moment, in case significant coverage of this chair might be found. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A named chair doesn't have to meet WP:GNG. As I pointed out above, named chairs are notable (or distinguished) positions in academia. This is why it confers notability on academics that hold such positions, per WP:ACADEMIC. Shoerack (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A named chair absolutely does have to meet WP:GNG. A person who holds a named chair does not, per WP:NPROF, which is clearly written only to apply to biographical articles.  If you wish this article to be kept, leaning in to a specious argument might not be the best strategy... Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. We have a large number of articles about named chairs as shown by the hierarchy of categories beginning with Category:Professorships and down through categories such as Category:Professorships by subject and Category:Professorships by university or college. This one is sourced better than most. Whether we should have articles such this is a subject that needs a wider discussion than here. Currently the consensus is that they are acceptable. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is not whether they are acceptable, rather the issue is whether there is a presumption in our guidelines. I don't think there is a presumption in NPROF, which applies to only to "the person" not the chair. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What was the intention of the WP:ACADEMIC when it was drafted? In my view, the intention was to apply the policy to all academic-related topics, from academics to their positions and awards. We may not conclude that WP:ACADEMIC does not apply to academic positions such as "named chair" and "distinguished professor" positions. I understand that policies and intentions may not perfectly align, and there may be unintended enforcement or implementation consequences. Shoerack (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In general WP:ACADEMIC is a living project, and many of us interact with it and tweak it on a continuing basis, just like the rest of Wikipedia. I can't say that in my short experience it has ever been applied to anything but a human being, and no one has yet argued that a "transitive property" like this applies. I think that pages like this need to be looked at on their own merits. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the original intention was to codify and clarify the earlier "Average Professor Test", still summarized in the guideline as "When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?" It never has been intended to apply to anything but a person. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the intention was never to apply the policy to all academic-related topics. It doesn't even discuss how to evaluate the article-worthiness of any topic other than a person, and it never has. Here is the first version with any text in it, and here is the version where the present numbering was established. The opening line: This guideline, sometimes referred to as the professor test, is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. For the purposes of this guideline an academic is some-one enaged in scholarly research or higher education and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. It's plainly about the people, not the places they work or the offices they hold. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Some named chairs are notable enough to warrant a page. One that comes to mind is the Rumford Chair of Physics at Harvard, due to its historical origins and connection to Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford, an important and notorious historical figure. So the Rumford chair does in fact satisfy GNG, seems to me. Does this one? Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Weak Delete- My original logic: "Since this is the first chair at a major American university to be funded by a foreign government, I believe that this particular chair is sufficiently notable to merit a page. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)" But based on what others have pointed out regarding the weakness of secondary sources, this may not be enough to satisfy GNG on its own-hence my change. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability, in Wikipedia terms, requires in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Being the first to do something is neither necessary nor sufficient. Can you explain which in-depth reliable sources you are using to reach this conclusion that it is notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m just taking the page at its face value. If you think it’s in error, that’s a different matter. And bring the first thing in a long series of very different things does seem notable to me in this sphere, so agree to disagree there. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Chairs are notable only for the people who hold them. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC).
 * I mostly agree with that. And yet, would you delete the Rumford chair page as well? There must be the possibility for a rare exception. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But that one meets GNG, right? so no need for exceptions. -- asilvering (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The topic does not meet GNG, which is the sole determinant of notability for this subject. Obviously the "named chairs" in NPROF refer to the holders of those positions, not the actual positions.
 * JoelleJay (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * — I have no further opinion on this article at this point as to whether it should be kept or deleted. Shoerack (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I propose that we close this as 'no-consensus' and we allow the discussion to continue elsewhere. Personally I think the points made by Shoerack are novel but interesting. And potentially undermine NPROF if a Professor is included in en.wiki on the basis of a "named chair" but the chair position itself is non-notable per the GNG. JMWt (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If it helps let me bold this: I withdraw the nomination JMWt (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not permitted to close a nomination as withdrawn when there are other "delete" opinions expressed in the discussion. And a no-consensus outcome would be strange for a discussion in which there is no actual support for it meeting the relevant notability guideline, GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * However, it is permitted to strike your nomination statement and cast a vote of “keep.” (or any WP:ATD or “neutral”).  Frank  Anchor  03:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find more than PR from the university itself, and even if I'm being overly ungenerous in that evaluation, I don't see how this topic could require more than a line or two in the article about the university itself. The argument from WP:PROF is specious (the guideline is for evaluating people and always has been). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * — While this debate may not be closed per WP:WITHDRAWN, I do think that a separate discussion at the relevant venue is warranted. Technically, we are saying that a professor meets WP:ACADEMIC if they hold a named chair in a major academic institution, regardless of whether the named chair meets GNG or not. But for the named chair itself to merit a stand-alone article, they must meet GNG. My argument is that if named chairs confer notability on academics, it means the named chairs are presumed notable. The problem is that WP:ACADEMIC did not explicitly state this. We can expand the scope of WP:ACADEMIC to cover academic positions such as "named chairs" and "vice chancellor," for example, but that's certainly not a discussion we should have in this debate. Shoerack (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think that, for a magazine article to convey GNG-notability on its subject, that magazine article must itself be notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no such policy that requires that a magazine article be notable to convey GNG-notability on its subject. Multiple independent, reliable magazines are required to establish a subject's notability. These magazines don't have to be notable, but they do have to be reliable, and multiple of them are required to establish notability. Reliability and notability are not the same. That said, we only need a single reliable source to confirm that a subject holds a named chair in major academic institutions, and that confers automatic notability on the subject. My argument is that, if this is the case, there is a presumed notability for named chairs in major academic institutions, and we do not need multiple independent, reliable sources to establish their notability. Shoerack (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A single sufficiently substantial NYTimes article on a subject would tend to establish notability for that subject. It doesn't make the reporters who wrote the article notable.  Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you got the idea that a single "substantial NYTimes article" established notability for a subject when our policy clearly says that there must be multiple such sources cited. In addition, I have no idea why you think your "reporters" example is relevant to what I wrote above. Shoerack (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * First, the point was that a single sufficiently substantial NYTimes article would tend to establish notability (emphasis added). In other words, where there is one sufficiently substantial article in the Times, it's a safe bet that there will be more. Second, the GNG is a guideline, not a policy. Third, it is an analogy to the claim you keep making. You say that because the fact of a person holding a named chair makes the person notable, the chair position itself must be notable. That's a lot like saying that because being covered in the Times makes a person notable (or tends to do so), then the reporters who write the coverage for the Times must be notable (or will very likely be so). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You repeatedly keep saying that GNG is a guideline, not a policy, when nobody is advancing the argument that a guideline is a policy. That said, while Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not technically the same, they document the good (or best) practices accepted in the Wikipedia community, and they are enforced. I.e., we enforce both our guidelines and policy. "That's a lot like saying that because being covered in the Times makes a person notable (or tends to do so), then the reporters who write the coverage for the Times must be notable (or will very likely be so)." is your own analogy, not mine. I have made my points; it's left for the closing admin to evaluate whether they have merit or not. Shoerack (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete The rationale for my decision to vote delete (after careful consideration) is primarily grounded in the application of Wikipedia's general notability guideline WP:GNG and the specific interpretation of the notability guideline for academics (WP:PROF or WP:ACADEMIC). The key points I believe support deletion are: 1. Lack of significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources that are necessary to establish the notability of the chair itself WP:GNG 2. The notability guideline for academics WP:NPROF applies to individuals, not to the academic positions or chairs they hold, which means the notability of the person does not extend to the chair position (WP:PROF).  3. The discussion between @David Eppstein and @XOR'easter underscores that notability of a subject requires in-depth coverage of the subject itself, not the notability of related individuals or the significance of the position they hold.  While there are arguments for keeping the article, such as the historical significance of the chair and the precedent of having articles about other notable chairs, I think the general consensus should be deletion – due to the lack of substantial coverage of the chair position itself as an independent subject worthy of a standalone Wikipedia article.
 * PD Slessor (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2023 (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.