Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederic B. 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   keep. L Faraone  04:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Frederic B. Pratt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One of a number of articles about relatives of oil magnate Charles Pratt. It's been unsourced for 5 years. The fact he was president of the board of the Pratt Institute is unremarkable, considering he is one of the family. By and large this is a genealogical piece which would be better recorded elsewhere. Sionk (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - He seems to be a leader of industry and gets a few credit points for being related to someone important and being the president of that institution is remarkable however he got the job. There are many  hits for him in the New York Times archive, more than passing coverage, including coverage of his death .  AFD isn't the place for sourcing issues, see WP:BEFORE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thankyou, but I had a look for sources and didn't see anything compelling. There's no evidence he was a "leader of industry" and people certainly don't inherit notability here from their parents. He was President of an Art College which, today or 100 years ago, doesn't automatically give a free pass through WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you know there's "no evidence" when you don't have any sources and haven't apparently looked at them? Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not stop jumping to assumptions about me and stick to identifying significant in-depth coverage about Frederic Pratt? The 'hits' in the NYT archive are largely society notices and announcements about events that he, or his relatives, were involved in, for example attending weddings, funerals, fetes, balls, or handing out the annual graduation certificates. Whether that's significant enough to mark him out, well, my opinion would be no, it isn't. Sionk (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And why do you think there are several mentions in the social circulars? Might it be that he was a notable businessman and philanthropist, or did the NYT just decide to include a series of random facts about anyone and anything? Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - The fact that he's held high offices in notable position should be enough to squeak through for notability, but sourcing would be great. King Jakob  C2 11:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  14:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  14:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Bad case of WP:INHERIT. The leadership of the Pratt Institute can go to that article, and the bit about the AOC predecessor to the relevant article.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:PROF C6: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Ray  Talk 00:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * He was not elected to an academic post. He was President of the Board of a private art college. Sionk (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. Thanks for correcting me. Striking my opinion then. Ray  Talk 16:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - RayAYang was right the first time. WP:PROF Criterion 6 does indeed state: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." That he was appointed and that the institution is private are both irrelevant. By any reasonable measure, Pratt Institute is a major academic society and he was in post for 44 years. Edwardx (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not. Pratt wasn't an academic, he was a businessman and son of the founder. Boards of trustees aren't appointed or elected for their academic prowess, as far as I'm aware. Sionk (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reinstated my opinion, given the evidence unearthed by Mscuthbert below that he was president of the institution for 40+ years. Ray  Talk 01:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - See my argument above. Clearly passes WP:PROF Criterion 6. And I'm working on improving the referencing. Edwardx (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- per Criterion 6: the president of the board of trustees at Pratt is the president of the school, which is a significant institution. How he got there is irrelevant to the criterion; it doesn't matter if he's an academic or not, it's that he led a significant academic institution. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Point 6 quite clearly applies to academic posts. Appointed or elected academic posts, such as academic Chair posts, are indications of significant academic achievement in teaching/research, hence denoting the likelihood of notability. WP:PROF is a notability criteria for academics, isn't it. Sionk (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Michael, is there any sort of information to that effect? The title "President of the Board of Trustees" is no longer used at the modern Pratt website. It's really a question of whether he was running the school on a day to day basis or whether he was more removed, at least in my mind. A person who functions as the head of a major academic institution is notable for his academic contributions, regardless of what his formally listed vocation might be. Ray  Talk 15:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ray -- you're right that a RS list of presidents would be helpful. I was mostly going on our own list at Pratt Institute which lists him as the sole president 1893–1937. If there were evidence that someone else was actually running the place and he was a figurehead I'd reconsider, but from this NYTimes article it really looks like he was running things and was notable for his commissioning of architects.  The Pratt Institute website refers to the brother Charles simply as "President" for his two year term  (see 1891), so I don't think it's too much to suppose that he was anything less... Aha! This brochure published by Pratt for its 125th anniversary  calls him president on pp. 13 and 14 and on p. 27 says "1923 Frederic B. Pratt becomes president of the board of trustees and assumes leadership of the Institute." (emphasis added).  I think it's pretty clear that he was in charge of a major institution, which is a pass of WP:PROF#C6; and the other sources are enough to establish GNG also. Note the obit in the NYTimes -- always enough for GNG if it's unpaid. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And note from NYTimes obit -- honorary doctorate Amherst College, which is spelled out in WP:PROF as also a clear sign of notability. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Pratt was not an academic. Thus references to WP:PROF are irrelevant.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The Gnews link contains a lot of coverage of him as heir to one of the country's greater fortunes, not least of which is his obituary in the New York Times . Numerous other sources only referenced in digital databases, due to age of the subject, searching through EBSCO and the like.  I think it's quite probable that he may pass the GNG; I may try to track down some of the sources.   Ray  Talk 15:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be great. I'm sitting on the fence here with regards to a recommendation either way. If there's anything beyond brief mentions in the newspapers of the day, it may tip the balance (clearly WP:PROF is irrelevant but I'd give credit to anyone who can show he meets WP:GNG). Sionk (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The president of the board of tustees of a major academic institution like Pratt Institute is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The claims "Prat was not an academic" ignore the fact that he held the top post at a major Academic Institution. He was leading a major academic institution in a postion that clearly is one that we consider all holders of ntoabel, he was notable, we should have the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All we're saying is he wasn't an academic. The noun 'academic' normally refers to a teacher or someone studying at a college. The fact he was leading a college of education is something different, maybe a valid claim to notability depending on your viewpoint. Sionk (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It is very rare for the President or Chair of a Board of Trustees to be President of the organization, but Pratt was at least at the time  an exception. So he was head of a university level institution -- even in its early days it was famous, so he meets the criterion for notability .  We do not have to investigate how or why he was appointed--it doesn't make any difference. If we start rejecting heads of organizations because of nepotism, it's going to get absurd. If he were effectually acting president, or president for a few months of transition, it might make a difference; but he was president for 44 years. And there was a full editorial obit  from the NYT, which we have always accepted as proof of notability. HI think we have also always accepted honorary doctorates. That NYT obit is enough for the GNG (we'll find them in other papers also, but they're not as well indexed). I find it   strange   to understand the objections here once it was clear he was effectual executive head of the college; I find it inconceivable that there remain objections   after the NYT obit was pointed out.   DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.