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.
Keep - the nom is simply wrong- there are references from the Telegraph. There is also a lively 1st nomination for deletion, which was unsuccessful. Oculi (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article, like most articles, is a work in progress. The only question here is, is he notable? Notability guidelines say he is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am having an issue with notability as evidenced by a lack of sources. What a dilemma! Relax the "rules", so that we don't exclude members of the academics that have made significant contributions to society, and then argue that any one of the six criteria of WP:NACADEMIC as having inherent notability regardless of policy. 1)- Notability can be questioned by any editor in good standing, 2)- A subject that survives an AFD by "no consensus" is not proof positive of notability beyond reproach. To be fair, arguing a past discussion as being relevant because it was "lively" is not supported by policies, guidelines, or essays. It did not "barely pass" but a possibly lessor; airing on the side of keep (default) when too close. A major part of the GNG guidelines is: Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable., and Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow.. I guess one issue is that using an established chair "only" as an indication of notability is not sufficient, especially when that is not discussed at all, just does not give credibility towards notability, and would need sourcing. Stating it is "a work in progress" is also not sufficient when notability has been questioned. The subject has written four books, according to the article, so it would seem there would be some notability, but this is not addressed either. The Telegraph source, proclaimed as being proof of notability, returned a "301 error" and a redirect to a page not giving anything I could see concerning the subject. Otr500 (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF#5 as he was not a distinguished professor and did not hold a named chair. WP:MILL lecturer whose controversial opinions have failed to gain much attention. buidhe06:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. Like Britain, for example! An established chair (i.e. a chair that always exists and to which an individual is appointed, as opposed to a personal chair specifically created for an individual) at a major British university is sufficient to pass PROF #5. Otherwise we'd be discriminating in favour of American academics, where named chairs are far, far more common and "distinguished professors" exist (they don't in Britain). People need to understand these basic facts before commenting and stop this Americanocentricity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you do think that American academics should be treated more favourably just because they have a different system and tend to give their chairs names, whereas British universities rarely do. Interesting. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that he wasnt one, but both of these are essentially his own CV. I cant see any external links to anything he did as a professor. Rathfelder (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I call hogwash on trying to expand this beyond named chairs. Named chairs began in Britain, they are a British thing. True, they are less common there than in the US. Which is why what we should probably do is question if any American named chairs are really at a level to establish notability, not start pretending that non-named chairs can possibly grant default notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much, much less common! But given we have always assumed that holders of named chairs (and usually also of non-named established chairs) at major universities are notable it seems to be a bit daft to change the goalposts now. And if holders of named chairs at major American universities are deemed to be notable then holders of established chairs at major British universities should be deemed notable as well to avoid pro-American bias. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well said! Drooled over on the internet = notable, not drooled over on the internet = non-notable, is an utterly ludicrous notability standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: That is where my problem lies. Dead links, dead archives, a list of 400 scientists, 4 books, that don't appear to be notable enough for those wishing keep to argue WP:NAUTHOR, ---- AND--- BUT HE WAS AN ESTABLISHED CHAIR, SO NOTABLE. We then have some argument that this is a British versus American thing. John Pack Lambert is correct. "IF" there is a push that any named chair is somehow supposed to allow automatic notability regardless of sourcing, this single criteria is against the more broadly accepted notability guidelines and policy on sourcing and needs reviewing. I have edged towards the idea that a named chair should present the presumption of notability but that criteria alone is NOT SUFFICIENT ENOUGH to grant automatic inclusion. I don't care what country the subject is from. I am an American but my traceable ancestry goes back to at least 1244 in England. This is the English Wikipedia and not the "American Wikipedia" nor the "British Wikipedia". While some seem to want to make some battle that there is a bias I will join Necrothesp if I see that is what is actually going on (Americanocentricity) with an article. If British standards are that the head of a department is an unnamed chair (non-named established chairs), then we possible need to at least consider this on a case by case basis. What I see here is a total lack of notability period. I went over the sources again because of what seems like indirect casting of aspirations that my "delete" !vote may somehow be biased. I could not find anything substantial to advance notability. If my search results are somehow returning biased results then per above So where is this coverage?. Since notability is challenged someone needs to offer proof, certainly beyond some of the crap presented as sources (including dead links) on the article. This would help show there is not an equally "vociferous claque of editors" trying to include not notable subjects. I am going to make this simple: Just presenting that anyone holds or held a "chair" (named or unnamed) does not nor should not grant some automatic inclusion as a "default notability". I have no problem leaning towards a presumption of notability because we do not need to exclude a subject that has significantly contributed to academics. There should at least be some minimum primary coverage advancing such notability more than "but he held a chair". Otr500 (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.