Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pieter Kooijmans Chair

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. — Jake Wartenberg 04:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kooijmans Chair

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

Delete - While Pieter Kooijmans and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer both appear notable, I can find no reliable sources discussing this rotating chair. The only reference provided is a press release from the organization (university) that houses the chair. Since this is in a non-English language speaking country I imagine there may be sources available in other languages, and will happily remove this nomination if they are turned up. But as it stands I have not been able to find any reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Named academic chairs don't normally get significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The people they are named for might, and the faculty members who are appointed to the chairs might, but the chair positions themselves don't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Named academic chair in major research universities are notable, because they are generally discussed when they are founded, and a successive appointments. We have many such articles--as is not surprising, since merely holding one of these positions is sufficient for notability according to WP:PROF. And this is Leiden, famous for centuries for this particular academic subject. Additional sources are needed, and should be findable. I accept that it is often difficult to document an award of any sort the first time around, just as any new organization/group/product/meme/whatever. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A press release by the Leiden University is a reliable source by definition. Founded in the 16th century, Leiden University is one of the most distinguished universities in the Netherladns and Europe. Per DGG above, as holding this chair is sufficent for personal notability, there remains no question wether the chair itself is articleworthy. hydrox (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Leiden University Ikip (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Leiden University --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 03:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only rationale for deletion offered by proposer is the lack of reliable sources. However, as noted by hydrox, the press release by the University is a reliable source. Another RS is here; since it does not give additional information beyond the press release, I have not added it as a source to the article. By the reasoning offered by DGG, with which I agree, a named chair is notable by force of WP:PROF. Merging with Leiden University would, moreover, produce a strange result: that article does not single out any of the many prestigious chairs, named or otherwise, at the University, such as the Lorentz Chair or the Cleveringa Chair; only mentioning this one chair there would give it an undue weight. --Lambiam 18:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have a well-established consensus that holding such a chair is an honor which confers notability, which indicates that the chair itself is a notable honor. Institutional sources describing their own actions in nonpromotional terms are generally accepted as reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Crafty (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2009 (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.