Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean of the United States Senate

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 keep. Spinning Spark 19:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dean of the United States Senate

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

This article does not cite any sources, and as best I can find, the term has only been once used by a reliable source (here, by the Congressional Research Service). (Several sources refer to Robert Byrd, late President pro tem, as the Dean, but none of them is reliable, or appears to be quoting a more reliable source.) However, since the term is completely synonymous with the much more frequently used "President pro tempore of the Senate," which is not only a formal position, but a constitutional office, and carries no added privileges or responsibilities (unlike the Dean of the House, who swears in the Speaker), I suggest that this article should be deleted, and replaced with a redirect to the article on the President pro tem, which could include one line in the intro reading something like "The President pro tem has also been referred to as the Dean of the Senate, paralleling the title of the longest-serving majority-party House member." Francophonie&Androphilie (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the 'Dean of the Senate' is not "completely synonymous" with 'President pro tempore', as the latter is almost always a member of the majority party, and seniority had little to do with the PPT's selection in the first 150 years of the Senate. Star Garnet (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very good point. I failed to notice that the Dean need not be a member of the majority party. My apologies. And while the source I linked to above does not state outright that the Dean is the longest-serving Senator, given the context (in a section on longevity of service), I'll concede that it's safe to assume that that's what the Congressional Research Service takes the term to mean. However, since the Deanship is not an official position (unlike the Deanship of the House), and lacking either documentation that each and every person who has been the longest-serving Senator has been at some point referred to as the Dean, or a reliable source that gives this definition and asserts that this definition has existed and remained the same since the birth of the Republic, wouldn't any list of historical deans be inherently synthesis? In other words, the list of Deans is really just a list of Senators who have at one point been the longest-serving; since this is an article about an informal term, it seems improper to attach it to people to whom, as far as we know, the term was never applied.
My main point, I suppose, is that there isn't enough documentation of this title to warrant a whole article, since really only the introduction can be proven. We could put a "Dean of the Senate" subsection under President pro tempore: Related Officials and a note on the Dean of the House page, both saying something along the lines of "The longest-serving Senator, regardless of party, is sometimes informally referred to as the Dean of the Senate. Unlike the Dean of the House, who exercises an official role, the Dean of the Senate is not granted any added privileges or duties, save for any he might receive as President pro tempore or President pro tempore emeritus" (citing the CRS and maybe a few other sources I've now dug up). Francophonie&Androphilie (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the vast majority have been referred to as dean, and a quick news search turns up at least one reference for the first four I searched for (Simmons, Smoot, Borah, Smoot and Borah, and Aiken). Star Garnet (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect or Merge with President pro tempore of the United States Senate~~. President pro tempore is the official terminology, so it doesn't seem suitable to have a separate article for informal terminology. But this article does have good information that'd be useful in the appropriate article. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 21:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, Dean and PPT are hardly the same thing. There have been 46 deans, and only 24 of them have concurrently served as PPT. Their combined concurrent time roughly totals 75 years, approximately only a third of the Senate's history. If the articles are merged, the list of Deans would have to remain a separate list; otherwise, the redirect would be misleading and enforce a stereotype that many people already hold. Star Garnet (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As dean of the senate is not the PPT, a simple redirect wouldn't suffice. Google searching Dean of the United States Senate really doesn't turn up much leading me to believe it's not a notable topic. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 03:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm inclined to agree with Star Garnet on notability. If you look at the links he and I have shown, you'll see that it is a term that's been used by reliable sources, if infrequently. My point is simply that it's not sufficiently notable for its own page. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 03:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to whether the discussion is about whether there's sufficient documentation that the longest-serving Senator is referred to as Dean, or whether a list of the longest-serving Senators at each point in history is relevant to Wikipedia. If it's the former, the matter can be resolved by renaming the article "List of most senior Senators in each Congress" or something to that effect. As far as I know, the term is not in general contemporary usage; the most recent "Dean" cited in the statement above retired in 1974, and the other three served long before that. But if it's the latter, I see no reason to delete the list, as it's an interesting historical footnote even granted that being the individual with the greatest seniority does not per se confer power; being president pro tempore requires being in the majority party, and being a committee chair or ranking minority member as a result of seniority is more significant than the amount of seniority itself. JTRH (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the list may be relevant elsewhere. As for the definition, it's not so much the recent "deans" that pose the problem (Inouye and Byrd have both been referred to as such), but more the long-ago ones. I've searched Brown, Ruggles, and Sumner on Google and Google News (last names, full names, full names in quotes, etc., each time along with the words "dean" and "senate"), and found absolutely nothing. In my opinion, this article makes two interesting points that simply can't be treated as a single point: It asserts that the longest-serving Senator is often called the Dean of the Senate; and it provides a list of men who have been the most senior senators. However, since it's unclear when the term started being used in reference to the longest-serving senator, one can't synthesize the two points.
My opinion is: Move Dean of the Senate#List of Deans to List of U.S. Senators who have been most senior among their colleagus (or something like that), if consensus holds it to be sufficiently notable. Redirect Dean of the Senate to President pro tempore of the United States Senate#Related Officials#Dean of the Senate. It would then be perfectly fine to write on the former page "Often, such a Senator is referred to as the Dean of the Senate," and to include on the latter page a wikilink to the former, since neither would be claiming that all historical most-senior senators have been referred to as deans, nor that the deanship is a sufficiently important role to warrant an article of its own. Francophonie&Androphilie (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Dean of the United States Senate" is very similar to the term Father of the House as used in the UK and other places. It is not a formal office of any sort and it is not the same as the President pro tempore (although in modern times both titles are often held by the same person). Even so, it does occasionally come up. Most references cite Robert Byrd as "Dean of the Senate" or something along those lines (Cite). I've found a few older sources that refer to Strom Thurmond as dean of the Senate (Here for example). But it's not just them. Here's a source referring to William Borah as "Dean of the Senate" in 1939. Incidentally Borah was Dean of the Senate from 1933 to 1940, but was never President pro tempore. So yes, it's not an actual "office," but it is a title with a significant amount of history to it. Faustus37 (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is if it's notable enough to have its own article. Prior to the 50's or so, the Presidency pro tem was not simply decided by seniority, so it was not at all uncommon for the dean to not be the PPT. Now, however, any dean is either the PPT, or would become PPT if their party were to gain control. The Deanship, therefore, is a closely related idea to the Presidency pro tem. The latter is inherently far more notable since it is a constitutional office, while the former is an informal title. Considering that the rest of the information in this article provided about the dean is original research insofar as it implies that all historical most-senior senators have been referred to as deans, there isn't much to say about the deanship that is worth having a whole article on it, as opposed to a subsection of President pro tempore: Related Officials, which already contains several formal, Senatorially-mandated offices. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 04:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears the term may have came about in the 1890s, as each dean from Justin Smith Morrill to the present (with the exception of John McClellan) is referred to as "dean"/"Dean" in at least one online news article or book. Prior to that, either the term didn't exist or sources using it are not online. This may not be surprising, however, as from Morrill on, all deans have served at least 22 years before becoming dean, while before Morrill, only Benton had served more than 18 years (23) prior to becoming dean. Thus, from the 1890s on, the 'position' requires a much greater time commitment to achieve. While the first half of the list may not be notable per se, it seems clear enough to me that it has been a widely recognized position for at least the past 120 years. Star Garnet (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth noting that since 1989 there have only been three Deans of the Senate: Thurmond, Byrd and Daniel Inouye. Given that Inouye has been the dean for a relatively short period of time, and that Deans predating Thurmond were well before the "Internet Age," if you will, it's not surprising to see most sources reference either Thurmond or Byrd. Faustus37 (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://www.jstor.org/stable/451619, published in 1935, says "Senator Smoot was 'dean of the Senate in continuous service.'", and it appears to be quoting some edition of Webster's dictionary. If we can dig up enough sources for the term, it's fine to provide a list of people who had the qualifications that now make someone the dean. 2001:18E8:2:1020:5A2:3E1C:4D48:98FB (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-established term, subject appropriate for Wikipedia. As for the "before the 50s or so" argument, above, I would remind people that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY - if the office was notable before the 50s, it's still notable now. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting term, and an occasionally useful piece of information on a major institution. Not earth shattering, but clearly a term that has been used for 100years, and distinct from other official designations. needs more references, but almost certain they can be found. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per WP:NOTNEO. - The topic -- the Senator with the longest continuous service -- meets WP:LIST. This is an article naming issue rather than a deletion issue. The trouble with the article name using "Dean" is that, unless a reliable source referred to the listed Senator as "Dean", that Senator should not be listed in the Wikipedia article. That would result in an incomplete List of United States Senators with the longest continuous service. Most of the sources merely talk about United States Senate and Howard Dean (e.g., "Because the fact is that on October 6th, five days before we voted in the United States Senate, Howard Dean said") or mention "appointment of Rep. Dean Heller to the United States Senate." However, I found a "dean" source for John C. StennisNew York Times, John Warner (from FOX: O'Reilly Factor May 28, 2007: Critics Lay into Hillary Clinton's Election Chances), Robert ByrdNPR Whitehouse.com So, what it comes down to is to either delete everything in the List of Deans table except for John C. Stennis, John Warner, and Robert Byrd and keep the beltway-insider-clever, but-does-not-meet Wikipedia:Article titles title, "Dean of the United States Senate," or keep the list intact and use an article title, such as List of United States Senators with the longest continuous service. Per WP:NOTNEO, Wikipedia is not the place to popularize terms such as Dean of the United States Senate and WP:V requires a reliable source referring to a specific Senator as "Dean" to identify that Senator in a list of Deans of the United State Senate. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that Dean of the Senate is a neologism, as it has been in fairly continuous use since at least the 1890s; here are references for all but one dean since 1891: Morrill, Allison, Hale, Frye, Cullom, Gallinger, Lodge, Warren, Simmons, Smoot, Borah, Smith, McKellar, George, Hayden, Russell, Ellender, Aiken, Eastland, Magnuson, Stennis, Thurmond, Byrd, Inouye. Star Garnet (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta learn how to do that kind of searching! It would help if you added a column to the table in the article and posted those links as sources. As for the article, other than writing Dean isan informal term used to refer to the Senator with the longest continuous service, there's not much to else to write about the topic. In that case, it would have to be deleted. However, if the artice was reamed List of Deans of the United States Senate, then it would fall under list requirements, instead of prose requirements, and could be kept. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of Deans of the United States Senate as per Uzma Gamal. Star Garnet (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AgreeI'm on board with this as long as its intro reads something like "The United States Senator with the longest continuous service among his peers is frequently referred to as the Dean of the Senate. A list of the individuals who've fit this definition is as follows." That way you can both define a useful term and list the people to whom it may have applied, without erroneously stating that it was ascribed to each and every one of them. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 07:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Established term, the nominator should spend some time to source the article (which should be easy enough to do) rather than delete it. Mountain Herb (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2012 (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.