Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Graf


 * 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. Closing this a little early, the consensus is quite clear. Courcelles 00:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Holly Graf

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Once again, what we have here is a textbook WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS scenario. Absent the scandal, the subject would not pass neither the overall general notability guidelines nor the specialized WP:SOLDIER fallback. Yes, she has been awarded medals, but the criteria are either your nations highest, or the 2nd-highest multiple times. Next is the scandal, of which there's really little else to say but that the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newswire. All that can be said about the event was that a) it happened, and b) she was relieved of command. The subject no longer receives extensive news coverage...the name drops of this week come in the wake of Owen Honors' own debacle, whose article will hopefully be excised. The subject is not parlaying this into a book tour or similar fame-grabbing claims that may extend notability beyond the initial event. At the end of the day, not every military mess rises to the Tailhook scandal, just as not every political brouhaha becomes another Watergate scandal. I'm sure ship captains aren't fired in the wake of scandal day in and day out, but this particular case had its time in the headlines, then it was off to the sunset. Tarc (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets the WP:BASIC criteria set forth in WP:BIO: not only on the basis of the reports of her being relieved of command, but also as the first woman in the US Navy to command a cruiser and the first woman to command a destroyer. WP:NOTNEWS refers to "routine news coverage". The national and international coverage of Graf's behavior and her termination of command in major news sources satisfies WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE, and WP:INDEPTH and demonstrates that the coverage is not "routine". WP:BLP1E pertains to "low-profile individuals". Arguments can easily be made that captains of warships or individuals who get multiple mentions in TIME when they repeatedly berate subordinates are not "low-profile" individuals. WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant as it is only an essay that does not reflect community consensus; the fact that it has not reached guideline status suggests that it is flawed in some manner. Regardless, WP:GNG overrides it. The recent "name drops" are actually an indicator of WP:PERSISTENCE and confirm Graf's notability in that she has been found "worthy of notice" to be mentioned in conjunction with another related person or event. Location (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GEOSCOPE, DIVERSE, INDEPTH, and PERSISTENCE refer to events, not people. The "name drops" refer to another AfD, not media mentions, so PERSISTENCE is again not a good rationale.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, an event centered on one person. And, as mentioned above, that person meets the WP:BASIC criteria set forth in WP:BIO and WP:GNG, particularly with the notability claim of being the first woman in the US Navy to command a cruiser and the first woman to command a destroyer. The "name drops" occur in conjunction with another subject that the media has deemed noteworthy, so PERSISTENCE is a good rationale. Location (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note about my sig. As it stands, the notability requirements for an article on an event and a biography are different, though I understand the point you are trying to make; I just wanted to make the note for the benefit of other editors who might not have noticed. I really don't see how arguing WP:WAX on another AfD would satisfy PERSISTANCE for this article at all.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A distinguished military career which was covered in the press makes her notable independent of the "one event" objection. And the Time article and NY Times article covered many episodes in her career, not just something that happened at one time and got a short burst of press coverage as WP:NOTNEWS would apply to. A career, and the tactics one used in pursuing it over a span of years, is not "one event." Edison (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please point to the notability guidelines that support the claim that a "distinguished military career" is in itself notable. Also, please back up the claim that there was coverage in reliable sources of this person prior to the scandal.  I removed a line from the lead that claimed just that because the source did not back up that assertion. Tarc (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Her career is not distinguished at all, really, and sounds much the same as thousands of other naval officers. Aside from the gender firsts and the scandal, she's got no notability as a military officer.  bahamut0013  words deeds 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The only reason I can see this person having lasting notability is as the first woman to command a US destroyer. However I'm not convinced that this is truly notable. There are many classes of naval ships, and the implication is that the first woman to command each type would be automatically notable. Would that extend to other countries too? As for GNG, I looked in the Proquest newspaper archive and did not find any significant coverage of her prior to her dismissal. Nor has she received significant coverage since then.   Will Beback    talk    22:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that the matter is also covered in USS Cowpens (CG-63). Perhaps that's sufficient.   Will Beback    talk    00:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Former commanding officer of the Cowpens, a major ship of the fleet--to my mind, enough to pass the notability test even if she wasn't the first woman to command a destroyer. Blueboy96 23:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which aspect of WP:PEOPLE do you think is met?   Will Beback    talk    23:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned earlier, she was the commanding officer of a major ship of the fleet--thus passes WP:MILPEOPLE. If that doesn't work, I would think being the first woman in the history of the Navy to command a cruiser and a destroyer qualifies as a "widely recognized contribution," per WP:PEOPLE. Blueboy96 23:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MILPEOPLE doesn't say or imply that commanding a cruiser confers notability. I see no evidence that the subject's contributions to the US Navy are "widely recognized". Can you point to several citations which could support that conclusion?   Will Beback    talk    00:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A guided missile cruiser is not exactly a ship of the line, blueboy. Let's not get too carried away in trying to prop up someone's shaky notability. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think a destroyer or cruiser counts as a "significant body".  bahamut0013  words deeds 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I indicated in the AfD on Capt. Honors, BLP1E clearly provides for inclusion of articles "if the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial[...] Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." You do not get much more reliable than TIME Magazine, especially a full featured article. -- RoninBK T C 05:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to pester, but the Time magazine article came out right after her dismissal so I don't see the persistence. As for BLP1E, how is the event of her dismissal significant, apart from her?   Will Beback    talk    22:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, her crew did dance and sing about it, I'm sure it's notable to them. :P  bahamut0013  words deeds 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep She was the first woman to command a destroyer and a cruiser in the U.S. Navy. That is notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - As the first female to command a cruiser in the US Navy Graf's notability seemingly extends beyond the incident of her sacking, so BLP1E probably doesn't apply (unlike Owen Honors). Also it would appear that there is a range of coverage in reliable sources (is it "significant", not sure but it seems ok to me). That said I do not accept keep arguments that assert that she is notable under WP:SOLDIER purely as she commanded a major US Navy fleet unit. This guideline doesn't automatically confer notabilty on a ships captain no matter how big it is or how important you think it is. (it does say that someone may be notable if they commanded a capital ship in combat but that doesn't apply here). Anotherclown (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: while her career is more or less undistinguished and identical to that of thousands of other naval officers, she does have two things going for her: the brief scandal and being a notable female first. While neither being fired nor being a small gender pioneer is enough for a "keep" on thier own, I think combined, they barely meet WP:MILPEOPLE, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. I think respect for WP:BLP1E drops it to a "weak" from a full "keep", because being a ship captain isn't really a fully public high-profile individual (thousands of them in the last fifty years whose names are known only to military records and the occasional memoir), especially since destroyers and cruisers aren't really capital ships anymore.  bahamut0013  words deeds 15:32, 7 January 2011 (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.