Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogden Professor of Fundamental Physics

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ogden Professor of Fundamental Physics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable professorship of a mid level university established in 2001 with apparent promotional issues involved with the benefactor Peter Ogden. Inadequate secondary reliable source coverage and I cannot see anything unique in this professorship. The Legend of Zorro 11:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content to Durham University Department of Physics, no opinion about feasibility of a redirect. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts of notability of a separate article on Durham University Department of Physics (since this is the only department of Durham University having a separate article). Interestingly the article has no info on Ogden Professor. The Legend of Zorro 15:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of the independent reliable soures needed to pass WP:GNG. The merge suggestion is no good because the department is probably also not independently notable (department-level subdivisions of universities usually aren't). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As a named chair in a UK university, it is notable. In UK, our university lecturers are not all professors (unlike US), so that any professor in a UK university has bene recognised by the univeristy as notable; hecne the professorship is also notable. Durham a major university, in the rank after Oxbridge. Merging is certainly an alternative. Deletion is certainly not. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can donate (but has to be huge) money to a university and the university will then create a professorship by that name. This does not imply any kind of notability of the professorship unless it is historically notable. In this case the chair was established in 2001 so it cannot possibly be notable. And the status of a university does not makes any difference here. Also Durham is surely not that much big brand name that every professorship there is notable. The Legend of Zorro 13:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The nom shows a lack of awareness of the UK academic system. As Peterkingiron points out, "professor" means something more prestigious in the UK than it does in the US (a UK "professor" is 1 or 2 rungs higher than a US "full professor," and hence UK "professors" all pass WP:PROF as individuals). And I'm not sure what "mid level" means, but Durham is ranked 80th in the world, with the Durham University Department of Physics ranked particularly highly. However, since the Ogden chair has only had one occupant, there are not many sources independent of him. I do find news and other coverage for the Ogden Centre for Fundamental Physics, which this chair is linked to; perhaps the article can be expanded to cover the Centre as a whole. Merging to Durham University Department of Physics or redirecting to Carlos Frenk are also options. -- 203.171.196.5 (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I NEVER questioned the notability of the occupying professor. As I said previously anybody can donate (but has to be huge) money to a university and the university will then create a professorship by that name. This does not makes the PROFESSORSHIP notable. In this particular case the professorship was established in 2001. You clearly said that "there are not many sources independent of him" hence you agree that the PROFESSORSHIP is NOT notable. I replied about merging with the department above and merging with Carlos Frenk is definitely not an option. Since he is definitely not going to be the only professor to occupy the chair. The Legend of Zorro 14:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Solomon7968 aka Zorro (the nom) takes strong objections to my comments. He appears to be a relatively new editor. My view is that if the holder of a professorial chair is notable, partly because he holds that chair, then the chair itself must also be notable. It might be possible to restructure the article as one on Ogden Centre for Fundamental Physics, of which the professor is clearly the director (or similar title). If the anon editor and I are wrong the nom need to cite relevant precedents. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I am not "a relatively new editor". I do not have 20K contributions like you but do have 4k contribution through past 2 years. For citing relevant precedents see the wikipedia policy which states that notability is not inherited. The Legend of Zorro 15:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe WP:NOTINHERITED is relevant here at all. -- 202.124.88.4 (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron said that "My view is that if the holder of a professorial chair is notable, partly because he holds that chair, then the chair itself must also be notable". It is a notability is inherited argument. The Legend of Zorro 14:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect As I argue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson Professor of Hazard and Risk, most professorships are not considered deserving of individual articles, unless they were held by Isaac Newton and Stephen Hawking or have attracted considerable controversy (and even then it may make more sense to discuss them elsewhere). There is almost nothing to be said about it, and it could be merged or redirected either to the benefactor, the holder or the university. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence for notability beyond its current occupant (who is indeed notable). Of the two references in the article, one is a link to the university itself (so not independent) and the other is a dead link. WP:PROF applies to individuals, not the posts they hold. Simply no good arguments for keeping this. Modest Genius ^talk 19:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plain non-notable without any doubts. Every University in US has a lot of professorships like that. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As pointed out above, the current occupant is notable (and presumable future occupants will be as well), but there is no reason for a separate article on this professorship itself. --Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2013 (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.