This listing is for biographical articles on academics. Please see WP:BIO for guidelines on the inclusion of biographical articles in general and WP:ACADEMIC for the widely-used notability standard for academics. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education for a general list of deletion debates related to education, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools for deletion debates about educational institutions.

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Academics and educators. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Academics and educators|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Academics and educators. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch


Academics and educators

Jens Hoffmann

Jens Hoffmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am the subject of this article and am requesting a courtesy deletion. The only notable aspect to my career in terms of wide in-depth press coverage is only one event, and no other coverage reveals substantial public interest in my career - the rest are run of the mill sources or passing mentions. There has been a banner at the top of the page for seven years asking for additional citations for verification, and none have come forward that changed its status. I would ask for the community to delete my page, which I had no hand in creating. JHHM (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valarie Wilson

Valarie Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable former school board member and onetime statewide candidate in Georgia. Article was created during her 2014 campaign and promptly abandoned afterwards. No in-depth coverage, no reason for notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Read (historian)

Charles Read (historian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This came originally from a discussion on the talk page of WP:AfD: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Charles_Read_(historian) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhinchey (talk • contribs) 15:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Charles Read is not notable generally nor as an academic. If at some point he becomes notable, most of what's in this article won't be relevant, because it's pretty much all small potatoes awards, and one interview in a newspaper.

He clearly doesn't meet [WP:GNG]; googling him shows his employee bio and his LinkedIn page and little else. He also does not meet any of the criteria of WP:Notability (academics). Going through all the academics criteria here:

  1. No one claims he significantly impacted his field
  2. No notable awards: the awards listed are (1) an award for dissertations, (2) an award for new researchers, (3) the T. S. Ashton Prize, worth only £1,500 and none of whose winners (except this one) have Wikipedia pages, and (4) an unnamed "prestigious prize at MIT" - but MIT doesn't seem to have his name on any of their webpages.
  3. Not an elected member of any "highly selective and prestigious" societies. His highest listed academic positions are pretty common -- he's one of 60-odd current fellows at Corpus Christi College
  4. There's no evidence I can find that his work has had a significant impact on higher education
  5. He's not been a chair or distinguished professor
  6. He's not had any highest-level positions anywhere
  7. The extent of his impact outside academia is being mentioned in a news article about Liz because he sent an unsolicited paper that the government ignored
  8. He's not led any major academic journal

Delete because he doesn't meet any WP:N. nhinchey (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. GrexHarmony (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charles Read has contributed significantly to the history of the Irish Famine in relating its cause to financial crises and to the causes of financial crises.[1][2][3] His involvement in pointing out (just before) the circumstances of Liz Truss government causing crises is also significant. In the UK we are suffering financially from this still. Perhaps the importance of the article can also perhaps be judged by the aggression of the attack on it by Et in Arcadia 1, a reference to 'Death in Paradise' and presumably a death threat. I have taken the precaution of reporting this to UK Police. Silsoe (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Ruzek

Josef Ruzek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An associate professor with a long career in psychology, but who doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Their high-impact papers are mid-author contributions to multi-author papers, or reviews. Doesn't seem to make general notability criteria either. Klbrain (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O'Dwyer (academic)

Michael O'Dwyer (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable - I did a little bit of searching and could find next to nothing about him, much less anything worth an article. EatingCarBatteries (contributions, talk) 07:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shai Davidai

Shai Davidai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BIO1E. This person has only received non-trivial coverage by reliable sources for their role as an activist and counter-protester during the 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupations. Before that he was only briefly mentioned by a couple of RS's, and his citation numbers are also pretty mid for a sociologist. This article could possibly be merged to either that page, or List of pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the United States in 2024#Columbia University, or Columbia University#21st century. Badbluebus (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce A. Manning

Bruce A. Manning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:NPROF notability on its face; not a named professor or other criterion. Has been tagged as deficient for over ten years, and not substantially improved in the past decade. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I'm not !voting due to a potential conflict of interest, but I notified Sandstein, who re-created the article, for comment. I'll get back with you all. Bearian (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been notified of this discussion, and indeed, according to the page history, I created this article in 2007 with the edit summary "recreated deleted article on user request". I have no recollection whatsoever as to who made this request to me or why I acted on it. But I agree that the article fails our current inclusion standards because it lacks any third-party references and does not describe why its subject might be notable. Sandstein 14:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think those are good arguments to improve the page substantially, but doesn't necessarily tell us whether to keep or delete. Qflib (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:A7, an "article about a real person ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" is subject to speedy deletion. Sandstein 17:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't take much (far less than for a keep at an AfD) to save an article from A7 deletion, and I think the article's "He is an expert in environmental chemistry" is enough.
As for actual notability, please note that WP:PROF is not about third-party references and it explicitly states that third-party references are not required as evidence for WP:PROF notability. (Or, put another way, we have thousands of third-party references, all of those papers that cite Manning's papers, and the problem is not one of having too few sources but rather too many to sift through.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that WP:Prof#C1 is satisfied. The work on arsenates is getting 3-figure and 4-figure citation numbers, which is strong for this fairly low-citation field (environmental geochemistry). The page does need some work to flesh it out some more. Qflib (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This person was recently promoted to Department Chair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbspbs (talk • contribs) 23:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said earlier, that is not relevant for notability. The only academic notability criterion for administrative work, WP:PROF#C6, is only for heads of entire universities. And #C5 is for chairs given to individual professors in recognition of outstanding scholarship, not for chairs of departments. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Prof#C1. As for the potential conflict of interest, it's tenuous: the SFSU President and I went to high school. Substantially, his top articles were cited 1,049, 895, 820, 786, and 569 times. He seems to be a very private person, who never grants interviews. I added a couple of sources. The "expert in" sentence in the lead paragraph is sufficient allegation of notability. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I disagree about WP:NPROF#C1. While one paper with > 1K citations is relevant, if you look at his co-author and also here the contrast is stark; Fendorf has an h-factor of 99 and a string of Fellow elections. From this comparison I don't think that this is really a low citation field. If he had some of those Fellow elections then, of course it would be different. However, without them I view it as close but not sustained enough.

Ruth Ben-Ghiat

Ruth Ben-Ghiat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No named chair or anything for WP:NPROF. The current "named" position is a temporary visting role not a faculty role as expected for NPROF. None of the sources here are independent, reliable, and providing significant coverage of her. The RS use her opinion on Trump but that does not make her notable. Czarking0 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that the top editor to the page has been blocked for sockpuppeting. User:JmsDoug Czarking0 (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Politics, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination points out only that she does not meet one very specific WP:PROF criterion, #C5. But notability need not achieved through meeting that criterion when others are available. In this case, she has many published reviews of her books, easily passing both WP:AUTHOR and (because they are in-depth independent reliable sources about her work) WP:GNG. As for "top editor" JmsDoug: that editor's contributions were limited to the infobox and the paragraph about the visiting position at the University of Hawaii. The article creation itself was long ago by someone else. So the suggestion that this is a foundationally tainted article turns out to be, if not disingenous, then at least spectacularly false. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not only talk about [[WP:NPROF]. I specifically stated why she does not meet WP:GNG. I just reread WP:AUTHOR and I am not seeing how she passes that either. if not disingenous, then at least spectacularly false Dude seriously? I googled for additional sources about her and I do not see any that are sig cov, independent, reliable. Czarking0 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None so blind as will not see.
    But to lead you more directly to what you have not seen: WP:AUTHOR 4(c) "The person's work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention". WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
    The many published reviews constitute both "significant critical attention" and "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". They are indeed about the subject in the sense that they are entirely about the subject's work, the thing she is notable for, just as we would expect significant coverage of an athlete to be about their athletic accomplishments or significant coverage of a musician to be about their musical performances. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are enough reviews about her works that meets NAUTHOR. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and I'd say a speedy one at that. Several books with multiple reviews in reliable independent sources means that she passes WP:AUTHOR, and her citation record [17] looks strong as well (five papers with over a hundred citations, the top one with over 800 citations and an h-index of 21), almost certainly meeting WP:PROF#1. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok this one probably changes my mind. Czarking0 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, WP:HEY, and WP:BEFORE. I deprodded the proposed nomination, because doing so would have been controversial at a time when we don't need any more, and because of clear notability. She is well-known as The expert on Fascism in the United States today: a simple Google search will reveal that. She earned tenure as a full professor at one of the world's top universities, New York University, where it's very difficult to get tenure. David Eppstein has patiently added evidence of author notability to the article. When nominating a scholar, you need also to look at Google Scholar. Bearian (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject seems to be publicly notable enough, based on a basic Google search and independent news coverage like this. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NAUTHOR. Thanks for adding the references to reviews, David Eppstein. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article only canvasses her early life and education. While her bio doesn't disclose notability, her publications might. Suggest note on talk page and tag(s) to allow the article to be revised with an aim to discussing her career and the impact of her work. ash (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having spoken with experts in Authoritarianism, I would like to add that they universally reject the notion that Ruth is an expert in the field.
They cited numerous instances of strong ideological bias and a lack of knowledge in her claimed field of expertise.
These issues include, but are not limited to:
A) A complete lack of knowledge about Chekism, a system of authoritarian rule by Russia's intelligence services. This has led to a cascade of errors in Ruth's commentary concerning Vladimir Putin.
B) Ruth's support for an authoritarian political party in Georgia (Georgian Dream).
C) Ruth's characterization of her *own* political opposition as authoritarians and fascists. CounterDolus (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost forgot...
Ruth has also, on numerous occasions, promoted conspiracy theories regarding the Catholic organization Opus Dei. CounterDolus (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia @CounterDolus! I'm sure that the points you make will be welcome in the article if they are backed up by reliable, independent, published sources. I wouldn't say that they constitute grounds for deletion though. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note also CounterDolus that Wikipedia policy on WP:Biographies of living people apply to talk pages as well as entries. These claims require reliable sources or should be removed. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That should be easy enough to provide.
Thank you. CounterDolus (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uzi Vishne

Uzi Vishne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Reason: There have been at least two {{notability}} and {{BLP unsourced}} templates between 30 October 2013 and 17 February 2025. The templates were made by David Eppstein, a computer science professor at the University of California.
After 17 February 2025, I did not see sources for his principal research areas, which were:
  • Noncommutative algebra
  • The first explicit construction of Ramanujan complexes
  • The proof of the existence of arithmetic lattices
  • The optimal bound on the systoles of Hurwitz surfaces
  • The full exposition of the solution of the Specht problem
  • The theorems in the theory of central simple algebras
  • The computations of fundamental groups of Galois covers of various algebraic varieties
  • The novel combinatorial constructions of monomial algebras
  • The several papers which Vishne published in group theory, statistics, computer science and applied algebra.
The article consists of three sources. One of them is an Israeli newspaper that discusses university studies, not mathematics. Another source is the Vishne homepage, which is a primary source, not a secondary source. Lastly, there are the Levitzki prize recipients as the third source. Tornbild (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He was a dean of the Faculty of Exact Sciences at Bar-Ilan University from 2021 to 2023 (sources: first, and second), isn't enough according to criteria 6 in Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? Tzahy (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Definitely not enough. That criterion would only be met by someone who headed Bar-Ilan University as a whole (its president). See WP:PROF, specific criteria notes, 6c: "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am Uzi Vishne, the subject of this discussion. I will only respond to the request for sources supporting the claim for my research topics, listed in User talk:Tornbild's message above. The references are from my list of publications, which lists easily verifiable published items.

  • Noncommutative algebra -- e.g. [A], [3], [51].
  • The first explicit construction of Ramanujan complexes -- [13], [14].
  • The proof of the existence of arithmetic lattices -- the words isospectral noncommensurable are missing, [19] (and [20]).
  • The optimal bound on the systoles of Hurwitz surfaces -- [35] (also [24] and [50]).
  • The full exposition of the solution of the Specht problem -- [29], [33], [39], culminating in [40], and expanded in [45] and [49].
  • The theorems in the theory of central simple algebras -- may refer to [31], but also [0], [28], [30], [37].
  • The computations of fundamental groups of Galois covers of various algebraic varieties - [8], [18], [35], [36].
  • The novel combinatorial constructions of monomial algebras -- [3].
  • The several papers which Vishne published in group theory, statistics, computer science and applied algebra. -- [2], [22], [27], [52], [56], ([57] and [58]).

(This list ignores [11], [65] and [69], which are my current favorites). עוזי ו. (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Čokor

Jovan Čokor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references found even on searching the google. I think it's not AFD'ed till now because it is an older article. Gauravs 51 (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Professor of Classics (Edinburgh)

Professor of Classics (Edinburgh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, article created potentially for the purposes of WP:RESUME. Not a named Professorship/Chair and concerned the precedence this article may set with every professorship at every university warranting an article. I do not believe that the article is warranted just because the position has existed since the 1700s given that many Professor positions may have existed at many of the other ancient universities. Most importantly, I am struggling to find any notable coverage of this Professorship outside of internal sources from the University of Edinburgh.

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. EmyRussell (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC) EmyRussell (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly non-notable, and its worthy to note that the article subject isn't like the endowed professorships like the ones at Oxford. The position is quite literally just the title for the chair of the faculty, i.e., the faculty admin. No doubt its a high position, but it only concerns Edinburgh and the position of being admin chair of the faculty does not reach the widespread secondary independent coverage needed to warrant a separate article.  GuardianH  19:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Both @EmyRussell and @GuardianH,
    Thank you for the opportunity to talk further about my article. I'll take both of your comments, but I'll start with the latter's, first, as it is the weakest in favour of deletion.
    @GuardianH is of the view that the Chair in Classics at Edinburgh is 'Clearly' (!) non-notable on account of the fact (1), the Chair is not an 'endowed' professorship 'like the ones at Oxford, and (2) the 'position is quite literally [!] just the title for the chair of the faculty, i.e., the faculty admin'.
  • Let's begin with (2) first. No, the position is not the title for the 'chair' of the faculty (whatever obliquely is meant by that). Indeed, Edinburgh has no such thing as a 'faculty', we have a department and staff, and it is not led by a 'chair'. The Faculty of Arts, which Carstares created in 1708, was abolished long ago, and the administrative head of the department is not the established Chair (there is no such department I can think that is led also by its established Cahir), but rather Senior Lecturer Benedikt Eckhardt: https://edwebprofiles.ed.ac.uk/profile/benedikt-eckhardt who holds the title of 'Head of Classics'. It's a shame this has to be stated here, and that @GuardianH is willing to write with such conviction in favour of deletion, despite having no knowledge of the subject at hand. If @GuardianH had attempted one Google search he could have cleared up this misconception. There has been no attempt here to create a Wikipedia page for the Head of Classics at Edinburgh, nor would I ever have attempted to do so. Similarly there is no 'admin chair of the faculty' because Edinburgh has no faculty, the administrative head is not the 'chair', and the Chair is not the administrative head.
  • Moving to (1) the Chair at Edinburgh is precisely the same as the 'endowed' Chairs at Oxford. It is the entire reason an article can appear with multiple holders of that Chair. Edinburgh, like Glasgow, St Andrews and Aberdeen but unlike Oxford and Cambridge is not, largely, funded by endowments. The endowment, usually landed, is a feature unique at this time to Oxford and Cambridge. Indeed, it's why Adam Smith thought Edinburgh and Glasgow had an edge during the Scottish Enlightenment (i.e., becauses lecturers had to compete for undergraduates to pay fees for classes, rather than rely on endowments). The particular way this Chair is funded is actually through a University issued bond since the Chair existed prior to the Department of Classics, and will continue after it, just as the Chairs at Oxford, Cambridge, but also, for example, Glasgow and Aberdeen exist beyond their respective departments. It is why the Chair can, for example, be vacant, and why it can continue even when it is not funded (for it is not tied to, say, a departmental salary).
  • Let me illustrate this by means of a 'Personal Chair'. At the UoE Professor Judy Barringer (https://edwebprofiles.ed.ac.uk/profile/judith-barringer) is 'Professor Greek Art and Archaeology'. This, however, is a personal Chair. There was no Professor of Greek Art and Archaeology before her, and there won't be one after her because this Chair is synonymous with Prof Barringer. It exists only insofar as it is an academic rank afforded to Prof Barringer. Comparably, as for the Regius Chair of Greek at Oxford, or the Professor of Humanity at Glasgow, the Chair exists regardless of the holder since it is established independent of an individual academic (or, indeed, a department -- the Chair at Oxford is instead held by Christ Church, and at Glasgow it has moved Departments). When William Ross Hardie died in 1916, the Chair in Humanity at Edinburgh was not extinguished and instead simply became vacant, because precisely like the Oxbridge Chairs it is established. Indeed, compare the exact same Chair at Glasgow, which is now named for MacDowell, but existed long before him, and continues to exist after him. It was not 'endowed' by him in any sense, although he did end up leaving money to that University. Another example is Glasgow's Chair in Humanity -- this established Chair still exists, but it is currently vacant. The Professors of Greek and Latin (the English equivalent to Humanity) at UCL are functionally identical, if less well known, younger, and apparently both notable enough to warrant individual pages!
  • So this is an established Chair, but is it notable? Well, that is a subjective position, of course, but I can bring in one of @EmyRussell's concerns here too as I argue that it is. 15 holders of these Chairs, prior to their amalgamation, had Wikipedia pages prior to the creation of this page. The sixteenth, Prof Douglas Cairns, also had a page, but I created it -- so let us not count him. It is clear, in following these pages, that nearly all of these people are notable insofar as they held the Chairs of either Greek or Humanity, not the other way round. Most of their pages simply state that they held these notable Chairs. Indeed, It's a shame @GuardianH was not around to let J. S. Blackie know that the Edinburgh Chair of Greek was without such note that he shouldn't bother resigning his Chair at Marischal College! Similarly, it's a shame @GuardianH was not around to tell Henry Raeburn that he shouldn't bother painting full portraits of James Pillans (Humanity) and Andrew Dalzell (Greek) -- he should clearly have found subjects of more note. Indeed, @GuardianH should probably email the Principal of the University, since one of these portraits has been leant out to the National Gallery, while a plethora of others line the hallway up Old College! A real gallery of nobodies! With that said, William Chester Goodhart's page probably could exist independently to his holding of the Chair, owing to his notable career in football and connexion with Trinity College, and J. S. Blackie's page could have existed even if he didn't hold the Chair, although he brought it great celebrity as it did to him. Indeed, the reason that the Chair of Greek appears in David Octavius Hill's famous Great Disruption painting is not because the Chair had much to say about theology, but because it was unconscionable to hold such an assembly with the Chair of Greek present.
  • This permits me to talk a little bit about sources, which @EmyRussell highlighted. However, it is not immediately clear to me what an 'internal source' is. Does this mean University facing websites? Or does it mean Edinburgh University Press publications? Does the Edinburgh University Library, who published a book which I cite concerning the private subscription library founded in honour of Sellar and Goodhart constitute an 'internal' source? Do sources published by the Clarendon Press count as 'internal' for Oxford pages? The sources on the pages for, say, the Regius Professor of Greek at Dublin, or the RPG at Oxford, are much worse and limited that what I have cited on this page. Indeed, Cambridge Chair only cites Cambridge's own websites! Alas, let's say that internal sources means Edinburgh's public facing websites, which I can elide if required -- although there is no precedent to do so -- and let's extend it also to EUP publications, even if that's anachronistic and limiting since, for example, Dalzell, yes the same man who was Chair of Greek, University Librarian, and secretary of the Senatus, published a history of University at the Press, prior to its existence as a Press in the modern sense, which I cite -- then you might wish to read Morris' excellent doctoral dissertation on the subject (https://oro.open.ac.uk/54648/). There is a plentiful bibliography at the end of Morris' PhD, and Chapter 3 is particularly fruitful owing to the fact that it is dedicated solely to the Chair of Greek at Edinburgh, with Chapter 5 dedicated to the Chair of Humanity at Glasgow. It also features an appendix cataloguing all the holders of the established Chairs in the Scottish Universities (p. 298). If you would like something published elsewhere, do also see 'The Origins of the Scottish Greek Chairs', in the fetschrift for Kenneth Dover, by M. A. Stewart (Craik, E. M. ed. 1998, Owls to Athens, Oxford). I'm surprised you struggled to find such sources -- they come up if you search terms like 'Professor of Greek Edinburgh' into any University library. Of course, there are plenty of other sources, but I highlight these two as particularly accessible and notable, external to Edinburgh, and indicative of the Chairs' celebrity. Alas, if only poor Michael Morris had @GuardianH there to tell him the Chairs at Edinburgh were so clearly not notable, he wouldn't have wasted those years writing his PhD thesis on them! There's not time for @GuardianH to tell Stewart what a bore his chapter in honour of Dover must have turned out to be, since Dover has died, and he will have surely mourned upon the realisation it was on those forgettable ancient Chairs! Of course, Dover held an established Chair in Greek at St Andrews himself... Nevertheless!
  • How about the first two issues raised, then? This article is not a resume, or a CV as we call it in the UK, so that can be immediately discarded. Unless Emy believes that I am the Chair of Classics, which I am not, or that I am the ghost of A. J. Beattie trying to recover his reputation after his fiasco concerning Linear B, which I am probably not, then we can swiftly discard such a suggestion. Edinburgh Uni has a Wikipedia project, and a great connexion with Wikipedia (e.g., Wikipedia:University of Edinburgh). I am a (relatively) new contributor, and I am currently charting the history of the departments of Greek and Latin. The first stage in that has been to create a page for its most notable feature -- the fact that is has an established Chair which represents the amalgamation of two historical Chairs founded in 1708 of much celebrity and with famous holders.
  • So, is there a precedent for such articles? Patently. There are many, many, many pages for established Chairs across the UK (and, I am sure, abroad). Chairs without names, Chairs of much much less renown, Chairs many many years younger. I have compiled a small list of them on the Talk page for the article, from only a few universities, which I won't repeat here as this is already a very long post. Please do have a look through them if you'd like, and you'll find that the Edinburgh Chair is, by comparison, an A-List celebrity (as great as I'm sure the Professors of Geography (Cambridge), Celtic (Oxford), and Physiology are -- they hold established Chairs after all).
    I look forward to responses from both of you, but I must stress that it will be dispiriting if they are, like one of these two responses, without any understanding of what the article is even about, what an established Chair is, or, indeed, simply falsehoods.
This is an incredibly long response and I am sad to say that I read most of it with some enjoyment. It's worth noting for the other editors coming to review that you are, by your own admission [21], an employee of the University of Edinburgh who has contributed to university affiliates. You have not followed our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy, particularly WP:COIEDIT. You are not supposed to directly edit these articles without first undergoing editor review, much less create them directly. It goes without saying that you have not kept discussions concise here either as required by policy.

You did not need to remark that it was a shame I was not around to tell Henry Raeburn that he shouldn't bother painting full portraits of James Pillans (Humanity) and Andrew Dalzell (Greek), even though I enjoyed readings remarks like these.

Your paragraph on sources is really the only relevant section here. While professors with endowed positions are generally considered notable, that does not thus make their office worthy of a Wikipedia article. You need to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV in accordance with WP:GNG that there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources to warrant a separate article (i.e., why it shouldn't just be listed in List of professorships at the University of Edinburgh). Because you have not done that, and the sources in the article do not prove significant secondary [!] and independent [!] coverage, the article is here at AfD.  GuardianH  00:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an employee at the University of Edinburgh (although there could [be] Oneirologists, albeit none to my knowledge, there are, alas, no Mystagogues!).
It’s fair to say I could have been less sarcastic, but your first comment was so entirely incorrect it’s difficult not to become frustrated. There is significant independent coverage, from University histories (e.g. Dalzell), original doctoral level research (Morris), and chapters in other works (Stewart). This is merely an indicative sample.
Much more than the source paragraph is relevant, and I can expand that if you would like. Indeed, please see the huge bibliography in Morris’ PhD if you’d like more. If you’d like me to cite every work, I can in time, but note well that is not the precedent on any of the other many articles on any of the other established chairs (the Cambridge Greek chair cites an application for that job! Talk about WP:Resume!). The exceptionalism of this Chair compared to others has already been demonstrated. Psychopompologist (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NB. It's worth to correct @GuardianH again. As I noted above, there are many Chairs of little notice and significance, and many more of lesser significance and history than the Edinburgh Chair(s) that have been deemed notable enough for Wikipedia pages. The Chair at Edinburgh is notable. It's holders have become notable through an association with it, not the other way around, and - indeed - the history of the Chair(s) is notable in its own right (e.g., Morris' PhD).
This article actually compromises, to some degree, on that. It takes the two established original Chairs, Greek and Humanity, and combines them into a single article. Comparably, at Glasgow, the Chairs have retained separate articles. Indeed, the reconstitution of the Chair is notable in its own right, being the only Chair of the several Ancient Chairs in Greek and Humanity at her Ancient Universities which has been combined. Psychopompologist (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note, for interest, that the death of the Professor of Greek in 1928 was not merely national news, but international news!: https://www.nytimes.com/1928/11/14/archives/edinburgh-professor-aw-mair-dies-in-fire-scholar-found-dead-in.html. Psychopompologist (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GuardianH @EmyRussell
I have, today, broadened the article in line with the criticisms found in your posts above.
Firstly, I have significantly expanded the sources used, including but not limited to other academic publications and independent secondary sources. This coverage is broad, significant, and notable (much of which is scholarly and/or peer reviewed).
Some of these sources were new to me, as I read wider than I already had in order to meet some of the issues raised. @GuardianH You may be surprised to discover that the Chair of Greek was referred to as the 'Regius Professor' at its foundation! See now my addition of such information on the Regius Professorships page. William Scott (Primus) was, alas, unable to secure a Crown grant to retain this honorific (despite promising to support the Union). Much more can be found in Emerson, Roger, L. (2008). Academic Patronage in the Scottish Enlightenment. Edinburgh: EUP, previously unknown to me, but which contains subchapters for every established professorship (and so both Greek and Humanity).
I note also that @GuardianH suggests this Chair be simply listed under the list of Professors, but I note that there are other Chairs listed there which have their own pages. Cf. Regius Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature, Regius Chair of Public Law and the Law of Nature and Nations, Forbes Chair of English Language. A number of the Chairs which are afforded pages are neither as notable, old, or well sourced as this page. Again, it seems by prior precedent that this page should be individual.
Finally, I have also uploaded pictures from my own collection of Prof Ian M. Campbell and A. J. Beattie in order to improve the galleries. Psychopompologist (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a general note, editors are less inclined to address your remarks if you are being facetious. So you are not employed by the University of Edinburgh or affiliated with the university in any way? What you've written on your profile makes that hard to believe so you need to clarify that and follow the policies I mentioned previously.
You are repeating a lot of talking points that are textbook reasons that the article is not notable. First of all, significant coverage means multiple secondary and independent dedicated to talking about the office of Professor of Classics. Using a college history published by the University of Edinburgh and a PhD thesis which was completed with the backing of the university do not count as secondary. Pointing to other professorships as proof that this article should be included is a textbook WP:WHATABOUTX argument that is rarely accepted. That the death of the Professor of Greek in 1928 was not merely national news, but international news is also a textbook associative fallacy that confuses the notability of the officeholder with the office itself. None of the sources you have since added qualify as (1) signficant (2) secondary (3) independent sources (4) dedicated to covering the office of "Professor of Classics". Since these are all lacking, that's all I have to say for now.  GuardianH  22:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being facetious, you simply made an incorrect assumption about one's status as an 'Oneirologist' and 'Mystagogue'.
(1) 'You are repeating a lot of talking points that are textbook reasons that the article is not notable. First of all, significant coverage means multiple secondary and independent dedicated to talking about the office of Professor of Classics.' All of which I have provided, please see the ample bibliography below the article, many of which trace the Chair, and its antecedent Chairs, from their foundation in 1708 to the point of publication for that source.
(2) 'Using a college history published by the University of Edinburgh and a PhD thesis which was completed with the backing of the university do not count as secondary.' Of course it does, -- that is precisely the nature of secondary literature (what do you think 'secondary' means, in that case?). Imagine if you couldn't cite articles under the Cambridge or Oxford articles because they were published by the Oxford University Press or Cambridge University Press. Go to both those Universities articles to see both repeatedly used, and to their respective Chairs in Greek and Latin to see the same. Universities do not 'control' their Press, I hope you understand. The PhD thesis was produced by an independent scholar, M. Morris, at the Open University under the supervision of Christopher Stray and funded by The Classical Association of England and Wales and the Joint Committee of the Hellenic Society. It has nothing to do with the University of Edinburgh and your ignorance of the topic is once again demonstrated.
See further Morris' chapter: Morris, M. (2008). 'The Democratic Intellect Preserved' in Hallett, J. P., & Stray, C. (eds) British Classics Outside England: The Academy and Beyond. Baylor, Texas: Baylor University Pres.
(3) 'Pointing to other professorships as proof that this article should be included is a textbook WP:WHATABOUTX argument that is rarely accepted.' Not my argument, but an exact reply to the argument by precedence stated in the original AfD request to which I am expected to engage.
(4) 'That the death of the Professor of Greek in 1928 was not merely national news, but international news is also a textbook associative fallacy that confuses the notability of the officeholder with the office itself.' Completely untrue, Mair is one of the least notable of the Professors. Mair's death is reported insofar as he was the Professor of Greek, not insofar as he was A. W. Mair.
(5) 'None of the sources you have since added qualify as (1) significant (2) secondary (3) independent sources (4) dedicated to covering the office of "Professor of Classics".' Demonstrably disproven by a single source: Mijers, Esther (2012). 'The Netherlands, William Carstares, and the Reform of Edinburgh University, 1690–17151' in Feingold, M. (ed.) 2015, History of Universities XXV/2. Oxford: OUP (published 2015). This Chapter covers the creation of the Chairs of Greek and Humanity by Carstares as published by a notable scholar (Mijers) via a notable independent press (OUP) as secondary literature employing direct use of independent sources (Carstares' own papers).
See further: Cairns, J. W. (207). "The Origins of the Edinburgh Law School: the Union of 1707 and the Regius Chair". Edinburgh Law Review. 11 (3): 300–48. This article similarly covers the creation of the Chairs, Emerson, Roger, L. (2008). Academic Patronage in the Scottish Enlightenment. Edinburgh: EUP. Emerson covers both Chairs individually. See Grant, Alexander (1884). The story of the University of Edinburgh during its first three hundred years (2 volumes). London. Both volumes give extensive time and space to the creation of the Chairs, including biographies of every holder until the publication of that volume. Stewart, M. A. (1990). 'The Origins of the Scottish Greek Chairs' in Craik, E. M. (ed.), Owls to Athens: Essays on Classical Subjects presented to Sir Kenneth Dover. Oxford: OUP. Psychopompologist (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In much simpler terms:
(2) To be considered for notability, secondary and independent sources are needed. Because those sources fail that standard due either being affiliated with or being directly published by the university, this criterion is not met.
Your response to (4) is disingenuous if one looks at the source [22]. Mair is not famous because he was "Professor of Greek," as you say. That is false. Rather, he is famous for having an extraordinary death being burned alive in his own study at Edinburgh [sic] per the source. If he had not died so extraordinarily there obviously would be no international headlines. Yes, you are certainly stretching the notability of the officeholder with the office in this case.
(4) Cairns fails being an independent source since he is literally published by the University of Edinburgh, also his work is dedicated to the law school, not the Professor of Classics. Mijers is about the closest you've gotten to (1)(2)(3), but misses (4) in that it only provides the background of those two chairs in speaking about the "Reform of Edinburgh University." This is so far your strongest source and if there had been many like this then I would have voted to include this article. But there is just this one — just one. The Grant source from 1884 [!] is dedicated to the history of the college, that's the only reason it mentions the professorship; it is not dedicated to the professorship itself. Another editor will have to chime in on Stewart because I don't have access to that source, but the title indicates its part of some sort of tribute to a scholar. As such, it may not be dealing with the professorship independently but rather as an homage to that scholar.  GuardianH  02:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as I mentioned previously, you should clarify what your connection is to the University of Edinburgh. Are you affiliated at all with the university? Do you have any connection to the university at all? These are straightforward.  GuardianH  03:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am a current PHD student at Edinburgh, and an alumnus (for my undergraduate degree).
(1) 'Because those sources fail that standard due either being affiliated with or being directly published by the university, this criterion is not met.' That's not how scholarly publishing works... I don't have time to educate you about this, I'm afraid. Please familiarise yourself with the function of university presses. Otherwise, see the many other non EUP sources.
(2) 'If he had not died so extraordinarily there obviously would be no international headlines. Yes, you are certainly stretching the notability of the officeholder with the office in this case.' Do you think the NYT published the death of every person who burned to death in the United Kingdom at that time? It's true Mair died in extraordinary circumstances, but only extraordinary circumstances for the Professor of Greek at Edinburgh. Regardless, it's more meat for the gristle. In one of your articles you cite someone's wedding notice!
(3) 'Cairns fails being an independent source since he is literally published by the University of Edinburgh, also his work is dedicated to the law school, not the Professor of Classics.' Haha, sorry are you of the view that sources have to exclusively cover a single topic? There's hardly a source cited on Wikipedia that could meet this criteria. Indeed, there's hardly an academic source that treats a single topic with single minded focus. Nearly every single scholarly publication will cover other information en passant. Cf. every other scholarly source ever, and every other scholarly reference on Wikipedia.
To return to the topic, the nature of the founding of the Regius Chair in 1707 is, obviously, pertinent to the founding of the 'Regius' Chairs in 1708, which is why Cairns covers both in his article. The Journal is published by EUP, not the the University itself. Cairns holds the 1710 Chair in Civl law, and, unsurprisingly, has an interest in the history of the Chairs and department. Once again, attempt to reflect on writing an article about Oxford, Cambridge, or any of its colleges without citing a single OUP or CUP source. Publishing houses are not their universities or vice versa. Morris' chapter was published by Baylor University Press, Stewart by the OUP, Mijers by the OUP. The Professor of Classics is the amalgamation of the two Chairs from 1708, which occured in 1987, so we shouldn't' expect to find any sources concerning the 'Professor of Classics' until after that time.
(4) 'The Grant source from 1884 [!] is dedicated to the history of the college, that's the only reason it mentions the professorship; it is not dedicated to the professorship itself.' See above. Yes, Grant lived a long time ago. This University has been going since 1583. Laurence Dundas, the inaugural holder of the Humanity Chair in 1708, owned his own history of the University (until that time)! Nb. square brackets, as I first used them with reference to your words, are to indicate they are not original to a quotation (otherwise use normal brackets, as I did elsewhere). Grant is one of the foremost university historians, along with Dalzell, Bower, and Horn. I haven't actually read Bower's book (Bower, A. (1817), The History of the University of Edinburgh Chiefly Compiled from Original Papers and Records, Edinburgh, Oliphant, Waugh and Innes. - 3 volumes), yet, but I might grab it from the library today. It wasn't published by the University Press, so will meet your standards! I matters little, but Edinburgh University Press was only founded in the 1940s, and yet I've cited books published at that Press in the 1800s! I'll let you work that one out.
(5) 'Another editor will have to chime in on Stewart because I don't have access to that source, but the title indicates its part of some sort of tribute to a scholar. ' Yes, it's a Festchrift -- I noted that at the start. Please peruse the Wikipedia page on the topic, it's quite good. My favourite is probably the Fetschrift for Alexander F. Garvie (Dionysalexandros), although Hugh Lloyd-Jones has a good article in that Dover one. The one for David West, a former member of staff at Edinburgh, is also quite good (1992), Author and Audience in Latin Literature, Cambridge, if you're into Latin stuff (esp. late-republic era Latin). Fetschriften are largely a dying art, now.
I apologise if I am coming across badly, here. You are clearly a diligent and intelligent young Wikipedia editor, for which you have my admiration, but you are also an American teenager, as you state on your User Page, and this also shows. You simply do not know enough about secondary literature, university presses, or even what a Fetschrift is, to be making such declarative statements regarding this article. Your sound concerns regarding Wikipedia policies are worthy, and I have attempted to address them (see above), but nothing is gained by labouring your falsehoods (e.g., on Morris' PhD) and misunderstandings (e.g., you began this conversation without even understanding what an established Chair is). Psychopompologist (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See now some additional references to Bower's History. The books are quite good, but Bower quotes extensively from primary sources and statements given before the Town Council, and so it's a bit of a trawl. He does have a subchapter on the establishments of the Chairs of Greek and Humanity, though, and from him I was able to discover the Humanity Chair was a unique foundation to the UK and not inspired by the Dutch Universities Carstares had seen in exile. My next project will be to improve Carstares' page, owing to the pithy nature of the study of his exile and Principalship compared to his religious writings and conflicts. Psychopompologist (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
N. B. the Mair NYT story was cited for interest, and is not cited in the article, so whatever your concerns are about it are not relevant here. Psychopompologist (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GuardianH You seem to be mixing up several supposed concerns here. You support deletion because of non-notability, so your arguments should address the substantive points @Psychopompologist has made regarding notability, not moving the goalposts to a supposed COI.
Your comment about anything being published by Edinburgh University Press not being "independent" makes it clear you don't know how academic publishing works. As Psychopompologist points out, a university press isn't there to print puff pieces about its own history. It's an editorially independent publishing arm for research by its own and, crucially, other scientists. The fact that the text in question is a Festschrift and not an empirical research paper doesn't mean it's not a legitimate source. The same goes for your assertions around what a Chair is. Please educate yourself more on aspects of academia you want to speak about with authority.
Note: as a UoE employee I won't vote on the AfD. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 20:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be mixing up several supposed concerns here. You support deletion because of non-notability, so your arguments should address the substantive points @Psychopompologist has made regarding notability, not moving the goalposts to a supposed COI. — I've addressed both substantive points and COI issues separately. I don't combine and move them, which is why I included it in a separate message [23]. Your comment straw mans or ignores what I said.

"but you are also an American teenager, as you state on your User Page, and this also shows." — This ageist personal attack is not worth addressing. The uncivil comments by you, a student at Edinburgh, and Arcaist, an employee of Edinburgh, make me less inclined to keep engaging the AfD.

The ultimate issue is that editors are having trouble finding the WP:SIGCOV necessary to warrant a Wikipedia article for this subject on its own as opposed to just having it listed in List of professorships at the University of Edinburgh. I would say that you are appealing to what is considered significant to a select group of academics when Wikipedia has its own guidelines that take these and other factors in account. EmyRussell, who focuses on education in the UK, was not wrong in saying there is little notable coverage of this Professorship outside of internal sources from the University of Edinburgh.  GuardianH  22:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I've said was uncivil. You make incorrect assertions with authority (a chair is just a faculty admin, a university press does not count as an independent source, a PhD thesis has "the backing of the university", a Festschrift is just a tribute etc.) which to me indicate someone unfamiliar with academia. Given that you edit university pages with some frequency, I had hoped that wasn't the case.
Again, I'm not taking a position for or against the deletion, as I have a clear and well-signposted COI. But the arguments need to be sound from both sides. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 23:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GuardianH @Arcaist
Thanks both for your replies.
You may view my comments as 'uncivil' but I view it as a simple statement of fact. I would not expect any teenager to know the peculiarities of academic publishing, the origins of doctoral theses, and intricacies of established professorships. Indeed, you have demonstrated that fact again and again. As @Arcaist writes 'You make incorrect assertions with authority (a chair is just a faculty admin, a university press does not count as an independent source, a PhD thesis has "the backing of the university", a Festschrift is just a tribute etc.) which to me indicate someone unfamiliar with academia.' I should note that my original frustration was born of your consistently bold false statements, and I have conceded and attempted to amend where you have highlighted WP policy issues. This discussion is only beneficial to the AfD is you actually understand the issues raised.
The AfD issue, first raised by @EmyRussell is of sources and notoriety. Alas, @EmyRussell has not responded to the lengthly defences of the notoriety of the Chair(s) which I have posted, and the issue of sources has been demonstrably disproved and defended throughout. The question of what 'internal sources' meant has not been answered, and as @Arcaist has echoed, the Edinburgh University Press has complete editorial independence and publishes peer reviewed scholarship by contributors from around the world. Describing it as 'internal' is, ultimately, wrong. If @EmyRussell meant University websites, as I conceded could be the case in my first reply, I have noted that I am willing (without precedence!) to remove those sources. Charitably, I have assumed the latter was meant. Moreover, as I noted in my first reply @EmyRussell was simply wrong, and I was able to cite several non-UOE (and non-EUP!) sources about the Chair(s) that were immediately accessible and easy to find.
You write 'I would say that you are appealing to what is considered significant to a select group of academics'. Well, most academic topics, like history, are considered significant to the select group of academics who study them. This topic has of particular interest to academics because it is an academic position, at a university. The majority of scholarship about it is just that, scholarship, written by scholars (often for scholars). This is well within Wikipedia guidelines.
To restate:
The AfD request by @EmyRussell highlighted the following issues. Not a named Professorship/Chair and concerned the precedence this article may set with every professorship at every university warranting an article. I do not believe that the article is warranted just because the position has existed since the 1700s given that many Professor positions may have existed at many of the other ancient universities. Most importantly, I am struggling to find any notable coverage of this Professorship outside of internal sources from the University of Edinburgh.
(1): 'Fails WP:N, article created potentially for the purposes of WP:RESUME.'
On this, see above, but nb. it is not a resume, nor am I the Chair.
(2): 'Not a named Professorship/Chair and concerned the precedence this article may set with every professorship at every university warranting an article.'
A misunderstanding which assumes that 'named' Professorships = Chairs. This Chair is established in preciesely the same was a 'named' Chair would be. Indeed, upon further research I have demonstrated that the Chair of Greek was actually first referred to with the honorific 'Regius'.
(3): 'I do not believe that the article is warranted just because the position has existed since the 1700s given that many Professor positions may have existed at many of the other ancient universities.'
The issue of notoriety which, hopefully, I have addressed above in my lengthy replies.
(4): 'Most importantly, I am struggling to find any notable coverage of this Professorship outside of internal sources from the University of Edinburgh.'
@EmyRussell viewed this as the most important point, but it is also the least clear owing to the term 'internal sources'. In reply, I note that I have vastly expanded the sources, and that I am willing to elide University websites if desired. Since then, I have included and referenced a significant and widespread collection of secondary sources, from University histories (Bower, Dalzell, Horn, Grant, Philippson & Anderson, Emerson) to peer reviewed published journal articles (Morris, Cairns, original research (Morris' PhD), chapters in OUP edited academic series (Mijers), biographies of the notable holders (Wallace on J. S. Blackie), and chapters in edited volumes (Stewart).
To which, as I stated earlier, the Chairs were notable enough to be painted by Henry Raeburn, satirised in The Strand (see the article), and included the famous painting of Disruption of 1843. The Chairs were significant enough that candidates were forced to campaign to hold them, backed by varying religious denominations, which situates the curious nature of these Professorships in their historical context (again, see article). They even came to be seen as an asset, as when 'Hunter sold the Chair to Dalzell for £300 'and a liferent of the salary' as sanctioned by the Town Council, since without pensions the aging professors often only had their Chairs as assets in old' (Grant, Sir Alexander (1884). The story of the University of Edinburgh during its first three hundred years (vol. 1). London. pp. 318-19).
Moreover, these Chairs, and their foundation, represent a momentous point in the history of the University of Edinburgh. They are the direct result of Carstares reforms, the first true Chairs made by him, and thus the genesis of the move from 'regenting' to Dutch style 'Professors'. All of this has been covered and added, and it is for this reason that every University historian has dedicated a chapter, or subchapter, to them, and chart their holders until the date of publication.
Accordingly, it seems to me that the burden is now on @EmyRussell, or other editors, to demonstrate that this does not make the Chairs notable enough for a Wikipedia page. For this to happen there will have to be engagement with the information I have cited that actually understands it. Alas, so far, @GuardianH has demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the University, academia more generally, and how secondary literature is defined.
I welcome further contributions -- the article has no a priori right to exist, but I hope that, in the spirit of engaging with the AfD, I have demonstrated where I think it has erred, and how I have addressed concerns thoroughly and, indeed, quickly! Psychopompologist (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I could post a question of comparison, too, what is it about the Dean of Yale Law School, an article you have created, which makes you think this position is more notable than the Professor of Classics at Edinburgh? The only two references, at the time I cite this article, are to a single Yale University website.
I want to stress that this is a genuine question, and I am keen for you to engage, and not to simply cite 'whataboutism'. The point is one of comparison -- this is an academic position that you have clearly deemed more notable. You consider the two references to the same webpage, a non-scholarly 'internal' Yale website, sufficient for this page. And yet, here you deem 18 separate sources, nearly all scholarly, including original PhD level research, insufficient. I am struggling to understand how that could be the case.
Separately, I share @Arcaist's concern that you seem to frequently edit and contribute pages about academia despite having demonstrated an extremely limited understanding of some basic tenets. Psychopompologist (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GuardianH I also want to note that I apologise if the incivility has meant you don't wish to engage in the AfD discussion. I note that your engagement has contributed to much sharpening of the article. Indeed, I never would have broadened the sources and found out so much more about the Chairs without your concerns. Your engagement has been, in this sense, productive.
However, it has been marred by a consistent misunderstanding of terms, scholarship, academia itself, etc. This is problematic insofar as it makes my defence of the article, and my own engagement, tiresome and repetitive. As I noted earlier 'You are clearly a diligent and intelligent young Wikipedia editor, for which you have my admiration', but this diligence is misused when attempting to contribute to discussions you do not understand.
In sum, I want to thank you for the engagement, and I apologise for the sarcasm -- I am British after all. I hope, in some sense, that you have also gained something from my responses. Psychopompologist (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion which desperately needs to hear some new voices. If you have already contributed your opinion or argument here, could you please step away and make space for other editors to weigh in with arguments bases on policies and sources. Please do not make uncivil comments towards your fellow editors which serve as a distraction from us considering whether or not this article should be kept. If this continues, you will be blocked from contributing any further to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I assume as the Principal Author I am still expected to engage? As per the AfD guidelines page. Happy to step away, otherwise. Psychopompologist (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My impression as a newcomer to this discussion is that the article is mistitled; it's mostly about the history of the different Chairs of Greek/Latin/Classics with only a very brief introductory mention of the (current) Professor of Classics position. As an article about the different titled positions and how they came to be, I think it's a good article with sources that appear solid (I don't have access to most). But as an article about the current position, it's mostly off-topic. I would lean toward delete but do not want to make that an "official" !vote just yet. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable post and covers the history of previous notable posts at an extremely notable and ancient university. Easily enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. As sadly often happens, one of the contributors to this discussion has misunderstood the difference between a chair (professorship) and a chair (head of department/faculty). The nominator has also misunderstood that a chair does not have to be named to be established (although there certainly are named chairs in the UK, the practice of naming established chairs is far, far commoner in the US and most established, often very long-established, chairs at British universities are not named). An established chair like this one is in fact exactly likes the ones at Oxbridge. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WeirdNAnnoyed Thanks for this, but the current position *is* the same position as those older ones. The Chair of Classics is the reconstitution of the two Chairs of Humanity and Greek into a single Chair. They are not separate positions. Psychopompologist (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanket Goel

Sanket Goel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable professor that does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are self published and passing mentions. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is a dean at at major university in India (BITS Pilani) , which qualifies him for #C6. As for the IEEE Sensors Council's Distinguished Lecturer Program, the process is very selective and I believe qualifies for #C3. Further the subject has also co-authored many books on MEMS and Microfluidics which are used are coursebooks at many institutions. The subject is a Senior Member of IEEE and is an Editor of many IEEE journals. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/author/37085761553 Shashy 922 (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A dean definitely does not quality for #C6, which only applies to a person who has held the highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution. Only the Vice Chancellor of BITS Pilani would qualify under #C6, not one of the at least 13 deans. Being an IEEE Senior Member also does not confer notability (see the clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bin Xie (researcher) from a few weeks ago). And only editors-in-chief of major journals automatically satisfy WP:NPROF, whereas this subject seems to only have held editorial board and associate editor positions. The Distinguished Lecturer Program appears to be a temporary, part-time guest speaker program, and while it seems to have a selection process of some kind, I do not think it is anywhere near an equivalent achievement to the distinguished professor appointment that is required to satisfy #C5. MCE89 (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under #C6, the case that a dean does not qualify is predicated on an overly narrow and rigid interpretation of WP:NPROF that ignores the real influence and decision-making authority that deans possess at prestigious universities. Although the Vice Chancellor is the highest ranking administrative official at BITS Pilani, the assertion that only this post fits under #C6 ignores how academic leadership really operates. Deans at a research-intensive university are not only administrative leaders; they also significantly influence research projects, supervise faculty hiring, guarantee funding, and create academic policies. Precedents in Wikipedia itself also support this—academics like G. "Anand" Anandalingam and Archana Chatterjee, both deans at prominent universities, have been regarded as notable despite not meeting your unfair rigorous interpretation. Furthermore, despite not meeting WP:NROF to this degree of scrutiny, other Wikipedia entries including those on Tanka Bahadur Subba and K. P. S. Mahalwar—who are only visiting professors—have been judged notable. Linda Aldoory, Theodosios Alexander , Rangapriya (Priya) Kannan are some other articles which fall far below the standard notability guideline and yet have been approved by the Wikipedia community, and the subject's notability far exceeds them. These are some articles that I found within a mere 5-minute surf. Given the time I'm sure that there will be far more articles on academicians on Wikipedia that fall below your interpretation of WP:NPROF.
Also, while fellowships at the IETE and IEI may not be at the level of an IEEE fellow, they are respected honors within the Indian engineering community. Further, only a small number of researchers from around the world in the very specific field of sensor technology are chosen for the distinguished lecturer program by the IEEE sensors council, which in itself is a leading organization in sensor technology. The program can be considered for #C2.
The subject also is a part of 3 different startups which impact industries related to biomedical devices. The impact of these startups can be clearly seen through the third-party reliable sources provided in the article.
Finally, one of the most objective indicators of scholarly influence, the subject's h and i10 indexes, place him well above the standard threshold of significant academic impact. To put this into perspective, his h-index of 37 (as of March 2025) and i10-index of 154 (as of March 2025) [24] higher by significant margins than that of John Jumper, the recent Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry who has an h-index of 29 and an i-index of 40 (as of March 2025). Both indexes are widely accepted measures in the research community for measuring a researcher's impact in their domain.
The extremely high and inconsistently applied standard being suggested here is not in line with established precedent on Wikipedia. Goel meets multiple criteria under WP:NPROF, including scholarly impact (#C1), prestigious academic recognition (#C2), professional honors (#C3), academic leadership (#C6), and industrial impact (#C8). Given that Wikipedia has recognized academics with far fewer citations, fewer sources, fewer honors, and lower levels of professional influence, there is no reasonable justification for claiming that Goel is not notable. The interpretation being applied here is far stricter than what has been used in past discussions of academic notability, and excluding Goel would establish an unrealistically high bar that is inconsistent with Wikipedia’s approach to evaluating notable academics. Shashy 922 (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment being a Dean is specifically excluded from being enough for nitability. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing a pass of any of the WP:NPROF criteria. His citations are decent but don't strike me as quite enough for #C1, and I don't think participating in the Fulbright Visiting Scholar Program counts for much towards notability. Fellowships of the IETE and IEI don't appear to be the kind of selective elected memberships that would qualify for #C3, and I don't think his participation in the IEEE Sensors Council’s Distinguished Lecturer Program is at all equivalent to a "distinguished professor appointment" for the purposes of #C5. So I think it's probably WP:TOOSOON for a pass on any of the WP:NPROF criteria, and I didn't see anything else that could give much of a claim to notability. MCE89 (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It is not the strongest case. As already mentioned above, it is NPROF that applies here, and no major WP:BEFORE was done. Dean does not count. His h-factor at 37 is OK, but his highest cited paper is 824 on a different topic (and I am not certain it is the same person) and the others are at most 100. The Fellowships do count somewhat, and without them I would have voted a weak delete. I have seen far weaker cases being defended and passing AfD. Hopefully this will not descend further into contentious statements; please stay calm! Ldm1954 (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I agree that while the subject may not be the most notable academician like a Nobel Prize winner, he is far more qualified than many previous articles published on different subjects in the same category. Instead of deleting the article, I feel as per WP:BEFORE (C), the community should try and improve the article since it has outdated information with sources from 2023. When I did research about him now there were many more sources and information. Shashy 922 (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really think these fellowships can be counted towards WP:NPROF#C3 though? If you look at the information on the IETE and IEI websites, only "Distinguished Fellows" and "Honorary Fellows" of the IETE and "Honorary Life Fellows" of the IEI are selective elected positions of the type described in C3. To become a Fellow of either organisation you just need to submit an application showing that you meet the age and education requirements and have held a "position of high responsibility" (just look at the examples they provide for what would qualify as a position of high responsibility), and then pay a fee. Neither strikes me as making this person a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor. MCE89 (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While the subject's fellowships might not strike you as qualifying for #C3, there are other articles on Wikipedia with far less notable subjects. Further, there are other criteria in WP:NPROF that the subject qualifies for, as I described in my reply above. Shashy 922 (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Otherstuff might apply to this argument. Augmented Seventh (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While it might seem that I'm pushing forward the "if that then why not this" argument, my aim over here is to bring attention to the fact that editors at Wikipedia have considered other academicians far less notable and qualified than the subject valid. Shashy 922 (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is WP:OSE and especially so when your sole focus here has been promoting Goel to the extent I had to remove your access to edit the page. Please be ware of WP:BLUDGEON Star Mississippi 14:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on his h factor and cited papers. Codonified (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning move to draft at this time, without objection to restoration to mainspace if the subject becomes unequivocally better cited through publication, or is otherwise reported on. BD2412 T 21:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. ✗plicit 14:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Morgan

Toni Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:BLP1E. While there are few reliable sources covering her crowdfunding efforts for education, other sources are either self-published or not independent such as[25], [26], [27] etc. Herinalian (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I removed the 3 self-published sources and the promotional lines they pointed to. I equally toned down the page to suit WP:NPOV and removed the tone tag. I also did a further deep search in Googlenews and found extra 5 WP:RS and added them. I believe the subject now meets WP:SIGCOV, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Furthermore, I carried out a source assessment to further check each of the 15 sources.Maltuguom (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the table as given below:
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Newspaper tabloid Yes Newspaper tabloid Yes focused on the subject ✔ Yes
Yes Newspaper tabloid Yes Newspaper tabloid Yes focused on the subject ✔ Yes
Yes Newspaper tabloid Yes Newspaper tabloid Yes focused on the subject ✔ Yes
Yes Newspaper tabloid Yes Newspaper tabloid Yes focused on the subject ✔ Yes
Yes Newspaper tabloid Yes Newspaper tabloid Yes focused on the subject ✔ Yes
Yes Newspaper tabloid Yes Newspaper tabloid Yes focused on the subject ✔ Yes
~ Harvard Ethics PDF doc ~ Harvard Ethics PDF doc ~ minor mention ~ Partial
Yes Online news media Yes Online news media Yes focused on the subject ✔ Yes
~ Harvard Project link ~ Harvard Project link ~ minor mention ~ Partial
~ Online news media ~ Online news media ~ minor mention ~ Partial
Yes Newspaper tabloid Yes Newspaper tabloid Yes focused on the subject ✔ Yes
~ Online news media ~ Online news media Yes focused on the subject ~ Partial
~ Online news media ~ Online news media ~ minor mention ~ Partial
~ Online news media ~ Online news media ~ minor mention ~ Partial
~ web platform web platform Yes focused on the subject ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Note - The source assessment table above clearly reveals that the subject passes the notable test. Also the discussion nominator partially agreed that there are reliable sources cited Maltuguom (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I removed some more language that I felt was blatantly promotional. Also, since this is listed under educators, I want to point out that she does not meet the WP:NPROF criteria - the awards are insufficient. No opinion on WP:GNG. Qflib (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It is still the case that the only sources in the article that contribute towards GNG (reliable, independent, and with in-depth coverage of her) are about a single thing (the crowdsourcing campaign for going to Harvard). The 2018 tbnewswatch source is not in-depth, and the remaining sources are self-written profiles on speaker's bureaus promoting her work as a speaker and a source from Harvard itself; they do not count as independent and reliable. I am not convinced that this article passes WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, per David Eppstein. We are missing WP:SIGCOV in non-primary reliable sources after the initial blitz of media in 2015. I searched all the usual places, found one follow up in 2016[28] and a mention/quote in 2020[29]. Subject is now working in AI field as a standard corporate professional. Setting aside the coverage from the one event, is there any argument to be made for notability? I don't see one, which makes me doubt this passes WP:BIO1E. Zzz plant (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In addition to failing to pass WP:BIO1E and lacking WP:SIGCOV, some of the sources here have been poorly assessed above. For example, this source is not "online news media," but a self-written biography from a speaker's agency. This source is merely Morgan's name mentioned once on a list of staff. This source is a republishing of the Boston Globe article. This source is not independent of the subject. This source is also a self-written biography as part of a list of speakers. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I appreciate Maltuguom's efforts to improve the page - and I took a minor crack at it as well - as I mentioned previously, there is no pass at all of WP:NPROF. On further review I am satisfied that WP:BIO1E is not met. I see no other possible route towards establishing notability. I also agree with GeorgiaHuman's assessments of sources. Qflib (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2025 (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.

Proposed deletions

  1. ^ Middleton A. The Great Famine in Ireland and Britain’s financial crisis. By Charles Read. Pp 341. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press. 2022. £25 paperback. Irish Historical Studies. 2024;48(173):194-195. doi:10.1017/ihs.2024.9
  2. ^ Malcolm, Elizabeth. “The Great Famine in Ireland and Britain's Financial Crisis by Charles Read, and: Dublin and the Great Irish Famine Ed. by Emily Mark-Fitzgerald, Ciarán McCabe, and Ciarán Reilly (Review).” Victorian studies 66.1 (2023): 138–140.
  3. ^ Richard A. Gaunt Charles Read, The Great Famine in Ireland and Britain’s Financial Crisis, Journal of Modern History 96 (2024), 4 pp. 961-962
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators
No tags for this post.