Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holland Pratt

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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holland Pratt[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm not seeing GNG being met here, nor any achievement that warrants a WP article. PR coverage of one event - best soldier in her year (2 refs) - does not cut it; nor does being a Rhodes Scholar. Nor does an incidental mention in an article about a historic environmental issue (1 ref).

GNG calls for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. What we're presented with here are, in essence, not very much local paper and trade magazine coverage of a routine event - best soldier - and nothing else.

Note, fwiw, that this article is somewhat involved in a DYK nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/List of United States Military Academy First Captains Tagishsimon (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shellwood: @Tagishsimon: @Maile66: I think we ought to keep the article, since it's already done, but if we don't, it's not that big a deal.

I put the Pratt article together because I made a few edits to the article on cadet first captains, and another contributor suggested that an article on the most recent incumbent might be a good idea. I had time and there were sufficient sources to use as references, so I went ahead and followed up. But it wasn't a priority or anything like that.

Billmckern (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here suggest meeting our actual notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most universities, including the military academies, recognize their top-achieving students and student leaders each year, and it's hard to recognize something so routine as a basis for notability. It's also typical for such top students and recipients of prestigious scholarships like the Rhodes to be recognized by their schools and hometown newspapers, but with 100 recipients of just that one each year, it's not a basis for notability either. Reywas92^Talk 14:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 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 This criterion has been met. The coverage is significant and the sources are reliable. I dispute the assertion that the CBS Evening News does not constitute widespread coverage. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CBS Evening News piece can be viewed here: it's a two-and-a-half-minute interview of the four Rhodes Scholars from the USMA together, and Pratt has just two lines. This is in no way, shape, or form significant coverage about her. Reywas92^Talk 01:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NACADEMIC "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. #2 "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." Rhodes Scholarship "The Rhodes Scholarship is an international postgraduate award for students to study at the University of Oxford. It is considered among the most prestigious international scholarship programs in the world." 1 2 — Maile (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. NACADEMIC begins with "An academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education; academic notability refers to being known for such engagement...Many academics have been faculty members (such as professors) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics have held research positions at academic research institutes (such as NIH, CNRS, etc.). However, academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements. Conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not need to be notable academics to warrant an article." This does NOT apply to undergraduates who have received an award for postgraduate study, but rather this criterion is for awards specifically for scholarly research such as IEEE Edison Medal or Abel Prize. Reywas92^Talk 01:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on notability (I did find some coverage but I'm torn on whether or not they count as lasting or significant), but I'm not really convinced that a Rhodes Scholarship is by itself enough to establish notability. Indeed, Amakuru mentioned on the talk page discussion that there's around a hundred of them per year. A Rhodes Scholarship is very impressive and speaking as someone who comes from an academic background myself it's something that we'd want to aspire to have. However, for what it's worth, it's not mentioned in WP:NACADEMIC and I'm not sure if it would fit the certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts part, especially when it's a scholarship and not exactly an award. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to all other participants in the WT:DYK discussion who haven't commented here yet: @Amakuru and Theleekycauldron: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

!Voting redirect per the arguments raised by Reywas92 as well as Theleekycauldron's link below. I did find one independent article specifically about her (from a local newspaper), but most of the remaining coverage, as noted above, seem to be about her corps in general and she only happened to be part of it. I'm not convinced that being featured in the WWE Tribute to the Troops conveys notability. I was originally considering !voting weak delete, but given that she's a possible search term (she did become First Captain only recently) and she could be notable in the future, I think a redirect to List of United States Military Academy First Captains could be a suitable compromise in the meantime. This is nothing against her achievements or her as a person, I'm only speaking with my encyclopedia notability glasses on. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not coming down one way or the other on notability – I agree with NLH5, it seems borderline – but I will say that the Rhodes scholarship is not quite usable for WP:NACADEMIC. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)/Archive 13#Rhodes scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by theleekycauldron (talk • contribs)
Weak keep. I think the subject meets GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources. There's certainly adequate sourcing here for a stand-alone article. While the Rhodes Scholarship and the position of first captain at West Point do not in themselves guarantee notability, they do contribute to it. Aside from the CBS interview, she was also featured in 2021's WWE Tribute to the Troops. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 11:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure one day she'll be notable enough for an article, but it's way too soon. Gamaliel (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Students and junior officers have a very high notability bar. She's well beneath it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON and known for just one event (distinguished career at West Point) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC, sources do not amount to significant coverage. Mztourist (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2022 (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.