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. Yamamoto Ichiro ( talk) 01:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Allen B. Reed

Allen B. Reed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This article fails to meet the criteria of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Notability (people). It relies heavily upon first-party sources and unreliable sources, such as "Find a Grave". For military-related articles, there should be some form of notability established, aside from that that an individual existed, knew actual notable people or was related to notable people. In 2012, this article was the subject of debate, as this was argued arduously and the article creator threatened to bring people who trimmed unencyclopedic content up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It's been four years and there has yet to be an establishment of notability and non-original research, and the article creator should recognize its unsuitability by now, so I am proposing it be deleted. DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 00:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 01:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 01:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Greetings, Darth Botto: I am not familiar with the talk pages so I may not be doing this correctly. But I expect that you and anyone else weighing in your nomination to delete this article will find these words. I have put considerable effort and research into the article on Captain Allen B. Reed, and I have just seen a message notification that you would like to have this article deleted. I do not understand why you singled out this article to delete based on your opinion that it does not meet appropriate standards based on what I believe you contend are unreliable sources. Perhaps you could clarify your reasons for wanting it deleted. I'm curious how Capt. Allen B. Reed's article came up on your radar, since presumably your opinion is that Captain Allen B. Reed is of inadequate historical significance to merit public interest and a wikipedia page, yet you found him. I obtained Reed's complete service file from the United States Naval Personnel Center in St. Louis and while these official records have not been scanned into the Wikimedia commons or otherwise, just as those for Admirals Halsey, Nimitz, Generals Patton, Bradley, etc, have not been scanned and uploaded, does that pose a problem as far as reference sources? Also, you may not be familiar with the Annual Register of US Naval Commissioned and Warrant Officers, but those annual official and public records contain the information of where a particular officer was stationed during any calendar year. From that one can construct a chronology of their naval service, as I did in Reed's article. As for notability or historical significance, as you are probably aware from apparently policing wikipedia, there are many, many articles in the form of biographies of non-flag rank military officers. And many of those are for contemporary, living subjects with little or zero references for the biographical statements made. Yet still, there they are and many of them. Concerning whether these these wiki biography articles of current, living non-flag officers are sufficiently "notable" or "historical" to merit a wikipedia article, given the lack of any references and complete historical insignificance, it's reasonable to assume the articles were likely written by a friend, relative or the subjects themselves. As to Captain Reed, a WWI Navy Cross recipient, who served for 37 years, and was the plank owner commissioning CO of the historically significant WW2 cruiser USS New Orleans ("Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" at Pearl Harbor on 7 Dec 1941) that accompanied President Franklin D. Roosevelt on the first visit by a POTUS to Hawaii, I am neither a friend nor relative. May I ask, are you nominating for deletion all of these non-historically significant, completely un-sourced, "vanity" wikipedia articles of living, non-flag rank military officers-- or petty bureaucrats, business people, entertainers, etc., that abound on wikipedia? (If one only knew where to look for them.) No disrespect meant and I am not looking to enter into a feud with you, which you would most certainly win since I'm not a darth kinda guy and this is not my bailiwick. I'm a live and let life sorta guy, so long as it's not illegal, dishonest or injurious. I have only contributed to articles and have no interest in deleting articles written by others. But I do disagree with your desire to see the subject article deleted for the reasons I have stated to defend the merit and credibility of the article. Presumably some democratic process will determine whether your desire to see the article deleted is realized. To anyone that is familiar with the process of the pending nomination to delete the article, and agrees with me that it should not be deleted and expresses that, thank you in advance. Signed, Barnabywoods

That's great that you're "not a darth kind of guy", but this isn't about you being great for getting out in the world or me being on trial for being such an evil person- this is about an article about someone who crewed a number of ships, but really doesn't have any notability to go off of. Half the sentences in the article are about Reed serving on ships, while the other half are trivial items about what those ships were special for. Is there anything to go off of pertaining to Reed's own notability, besides merely that he existed? DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 03:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Also, I wanted you to know that you do very well with your contributions to Military articles, with generally good citations and what-not. However, I simply don't see this one as being notable. DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 05:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete, not notable for stand alone article and believe WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek ( talk) 14:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete, does not seem to pass the threshold of notability and WP:MEMORIAL. EricSerge ( talk) 15:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete Weak keep - Most (all?) of the citations are routine announcements of station, some from primary sources, and don't necessarily meet the requirement that an subject of the article be given in depth coverage by secondary or tertiary sources to meet the notability guidelines. I could be convinced otherwise, but scanning the citations, I just don't see it here. Am I missing something? Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 19:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I just added a couple things I found in papers on genealogybank. The newspapers.com stuff I found wasn't quite as good, but maybe I missed something (newspapers.com gives the ability of making clippings, so everyone would be able to see it, so I'll add a couple citations from there). Anyway, in late March/early April 1935 there was some fanfare for the New Orleans when it visited, you guessed it, New Orleans, and Reed featured prominently enough to get some relatively in depth coverage. I'm considering changing my !vote... Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 19:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I've decided to change my vote to weak keep. WikiProject Military history has an essay about notability for military people which includes the following (emphasis mine):

"Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable. Likewise, those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article, although, depending upon the circumstances, they may warrant mention within an existing article or list. In determining this, the breadth of coverage should be considered. If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand alone article. If this information is not available, then inclusion in a parent article or list is probably the best approach rather than a stand alone article. As with all other editorial decisions, consensus should be sought where there is uncertainty in this regard.

I didn't find an Obit for Reed, but his birthday was mentioned in a small article related to the celebrations of the New Orleans in New Orleans in 1935, as well as many mentions of his wife, education, and son. Old newspapers aren't accepted by all as reliable secondary sources, but I like them as such. So, while the essay I quote isn't policy, and the sources aren't perfect, I'm going to accept them both. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 19:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete-- appears to be a WP:MEMORIAL and WP:OR largely based on primary sources. Wikipedia does not publish original research. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. As far as I can tell, being awarded the Navy Cross makes someone notable in Wikipedia terms. A couple of points relating to this:

• Navy Cross: "The Navy Cross is the United States military's second-highest decoration awarded for valor in combat."
• WP:MILNG: "Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour, or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times"
• Reed wasn't awarded the Navy Cross multiple times, but we have a number of articles on people who only received the award once (e.g. George S. Rentz). I am not sure where the "multiple times" caveat comes from, as it doesn't make a lot of sense.

We currently have 712 entries in Category:Recipients of the Navy Cross (United States). If this article is deleted, how many of those will need to go as well? This point seems to have been missed in the focus on the WP:OR in the article. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC) reply

No, a single second-level decoration certainly does not make someone notable enough for a Wikipedia article. This is fully explained in WP:SOLDIER. Yes, we have many articles on recipients, but they either received more than one, are notable for something else or should be deleted. Note that I am not commenting on the validity of this article, as I think Reed may be borderline notable, but certainly not just for having a Navy Cross. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the caveat doesn't make a lot of sense; do you know how many second-level decorations have been awarded throughout the centuries and throughout the world? If we have an article on every one of them then why not an article on the many more people who have won a third-level decoration? And so it goes on. We have to have a cut-off somewhere. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Agreed. But the real point, one that you missed (and I missed first time round) is that the Navy Cross was a third-level award until it was elevated to second-level status during WWII (in 1942). Of course I am aware that huge numbers of second-level decorations have been awarded. Nowhere have I made the argument that you make about third-level decorations. I am mystified as to why you are putting up that strawman argument. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but I'm afraid I have no idea what point you're making. You say above that a single Navy Cross is sufficient notability for an article and that you don't understand the caveat in WP:SOLDIER that we usually require at least two for notability, then you appear to agree with me that it is not sufficient for notability. But your whole keep argument appears to be based on the fact that he had a single Navy Cross (incidentally, it was always effectively a second-level decoration because the DSM wasn't awarded for valour). My point is merely that we need a cut-off somewhere for the notability of recipients of decorations and we have decided that cut-off point should be a single first-level decoration or two second-level decorations, so I'm not sure why you seem to be arguing that he's notable because he had a Navy Cross. He may indeed be notable for other reasons, but not for his decoration. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC) reply

My point about the 'multiple awards' criterion is that is appears to discriminate against those recipients who were unfortunate enough to be killed in action in the act for which they were awarded the medal. Why should one person, who happened to receive one Navy Cross and lived and then received a second one (and maybe died), be more notable than someone who received one and died? It seems purely arbitrary. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC) reply

It's no more arbitrary than saying a general is inherently notable because of his rank but a sergeant is not. Or that a politician who's served one day in a national legislature is inherently notable but one who's served thirty years on a city council is not. Or indeed that someone with a Victoria Cross is inherently notable but someone with a Military Cross is not. (Note that although 'officially' we recognise no inherent notability, in reality we most certainly do). All are essentially arbitrary, but we have to have some sort of cut-off point otherwise we'd be flooded with articles and pretty much anyone could be justified as having some sort of notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Additional comment: Ironically, for those citing WP:NOTMEMORIAL, many of the single-time Navy Cross recipients were killed in action (e.g. Harry L. Corl). It is difficult to win more awards once you are dead, but my point is that people writing articles on those who died in wars as well as those who survived wars is a (valid) form of memorialization. People shouldn't misuse WP:NOTMEMORIAL in such cases - the real intent behind WP:NOTMEMORIAL was to prevent long lists of people who died in disasters and suchlike. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • You appear to have misinterpreted WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It is being quoted correctly. See #4. Millions of people have died in war. Being killed in war does not by itself make you notable enough for an article. Even if you are American! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I said nothing about Americans. WP:MEMORIAL applies to everyone, not just Americans. You seem to be unaware of the history of WP:MEMORIAL. In its original form it was this. This restriction arose because people were adding long lists of people that died in disasters and other events, including the 9/11 attacks. The point I am making is that WP:MEMORIAL is more about how an article is written and why. Someone is either notable or not. The fact that they are dead doesn't matter. What WP:MEMORIAL is intended to avoid is people attempting to eulogise recently dead non-notable people, usually a relative or friend to whom they (mistakenly) want to provide a tribute by writing a Wikipedia article about them. There is a difference between that and writing articles about people who were killed in wars where the process of remembering them is recorded in independent and reliable sources. Such an article may appear to be a WP:MEMORIAL, but there is a difference between an article written as a memorial and an article about how someone is remembered by society. Do you see the difference I am trying to describe? Carcharoth ( talk) 15:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article has quite a lot of background material that is not about Reed and tends more to obscure him than enlighten us about his service. The article would be stronger if it was shorter in fact, but there is no doubt in my mind that he easily meets the WP:GNG. The senior commands he held, the Navy Cross, "Captain Reed Day" all help too. I don't believe WP:NOTMEMORIAL is intended for cases like this. Philafrenzy ( talk) 11:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Delete: large amounts of the article remain unreferenced, which makes it difficult to accurately determine if the coverage is significant. In its current form, I'm not sure that the level of coverage actually does meet WP:SIGCOV, but if the remainder of the article could be referenced to reliable sources, I believe it would be a keeper. (I have marked where I feel refs are needed in the article). It is important to note that WP:SOLDIER does not state that any topic is automatically notable, but rather provides advice about what is likely to be notable, so it shouldn't be quoted as the be all and end all. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment The portion of the citation quoted in the article for Reed's award of the Navy Cross seems to make clear that it was awarded for distinguished service, not valor, so the preceding discussion of notability associated with award of a nation's highest or second highest award for award is irrelevant. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 21:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I agree with Philafrenzy - the intro alone does more to "obscure him than enlighten us about his service". I am happy to start digging in and see what I can do to eliminate sources like Find a Grave, condense the less essential information, and highlight what is meaningful and notable. I love to edit, particularly biographies, but I have not worked on many military articles, so any pointers are appreciated.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I have stripped out everything that was marked as citation needed - and removed some content that does appear to be original research - and moved those items to Talk:Allen B. Reed. I am stopping for the present to see if the article has any chance before putting more time into it. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find good biographical information that I was hoping to find.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply

• Neutral per article improvements; I'm not convinced that the subject's commands were significant enough as a notability claim and / or that the coverage is sufficient. But the article is not a TNT-able version that it used to be. Note: should the article be kept, I suggest that most (if not all) pre-WWI content go, as the level of detail on a junior officer is undue. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I scrunched all the pre-World War I sections into "Early career" and edited it down quite a bit. If it looks like it will be a viable article, then I'm happy to work on it some more. I am really bothered, though, by two things - and I don't know whether it should affect the outcome of the article or not. I cannot find anything at all about him being buried at Arlington Cemetery. If he was buried there, I would think it would be reported on somewhere. That was going to be my way into finding biographical info - because if he was buried there, then there would likely be something printed somewhere about his service. I didn't find a thing. He also would have likely had a Find a Grave record set up by the military with the cemetery and grave info, but the Find a Grave record was started by a person (if I am remembering correctly how you tell if the military record was sent.) And, why were there several medals listed on the page, but he only seems to have received the Navy Cross? Isn't it weird?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply

So weird, I just found the Arlington Cemetery record by searching here. I thought this was one of the places I checked.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC) - struck out comment about this, since I ultimately did find it.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply

But, still, isn't it strange that there's nothing worthwhile that comes from a query on his name and Arlington National Cemetery?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No major commands during wartime. (he was commander of a transport ship during WWI). The award of the Navy Cross seems rather peculiar, and even the citation said it was for his general service. ,which is basically meaningless. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ DGG: Why are you pointing out that he did not hold a major command during wartime? No-one has claimed this, and while those who hold major command during wartime are notable, those who don't can still be notable. And what is your basis for saying that the award of his Navy Cross seems "rather peculiar"? Do you have anything to base that on, or is it just your personal opinion? The actual citation (to avoid misleading anyone who is reading this) states:

    "for distinguished service in the line of his profession as Commanding Officer of the U.S.S. SUSQUEHANNA, engaged in the important, exacting and hazardous duty of transporting and escorting troops and supplies to European ports through waters infested with enemy submarines and mines during World War I."

    That is clearly wartime service, not general service. I get the point being made that it was not for valour, and that the initial awards were "made from a lengthy list published after World War I", but it does contribute to his notability, even if it doesn't establish it. I think what people may be doing here is dismissing the Navy Cross completely because it is not at a high enough level, but the award should still be taken into account rather than dismissed in its entirety. To call the award "meaningless" verges on being offensive. @ CaroleHenson: About the unsourced material, the searches often need to be done on "A. B. Reed", which brings up more details of his Port Balboa service in the volumes of the Panama Canal Record. Also, his promotion to navy captain in 1927 is easily found here in Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Carcharoth, Regarding the date he made captain, I added that to the article. I'm not sure, though, how many people are comfortable using snippets as sources. In this case, the sentence that is needed is visible in the snippet boxes, so I used it. Someone may remove / tag it, though, as a heads-up.

Regarding finding other sources, if you find more sources, please post it on Talk:Allen B. Reed. I am happy to make updates. If you can find sources for uncited content that was the World War II section, I think it will make a stronger case for notability. Otherwise, I'll wait til there is a decision to "keep" the article to do any more research.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Being captain of a transport ship is not a major command. It may well have been dangerous, but it still is not a major command.. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Agreed it is not a major command, but no-one is claiming that, so why you are repeating this, I still don't know. Of course it was dangerous. There is no "may" about it. I am not saying that being in command of a US troopship during World War I confers notability (it doesn't), but overall (together with the other material) it puts Reed in that borderline area where there is coverage at a certain level over a certain period of time, without there being any one single thing that definitely makes him notable. Whether that is enough to pass the bar for notability still seems rather subjective. Some people think that it is enough, others think it is not enough. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree analysis of the guidelines, and which should take precedence in a given situation, often is subjective. And, here's my thoughts - mostly reading between the lines - and by definition absolutely subjective. I think he was a very reliable, steady officer - someone who early in his career was chosen to be an escort to a commander of a Japanese warship and sat on an inquiry board. He received the Navy Cross for managing a dangerous situation in a way that his superiors thought commendable. IMO he's the kind of guy that I'd want commanding a ship during war... and as a side comment and pure conjecture, I think he's likely not the kind of commander that Kennedy worried about during the quarantine of the Cuban Missile crisis. So, I would like his article to stay.

But we're not finding secondary sources for him except for changes in his status - so it's essentially primary data. The only one that's close to a story about him is the one about his being escort to Takeshita Isamu - and it's just a couple of sentences. The biggest issue is that were not able to find even one secondary source that explores his career, and the guideline for notability calls for significant coverage.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Does not meet any of the eight listed criteria at WP:MILPEOPLE nor does there appear to be "significant coverage [of him] in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 12:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep - the subject appears to be notable, but the article is not a "C" class; it's more like a "start'. Here's another example of a poorly cited article that could use some real work on it, and going to AfD, instead of some other board for editing and formatting help. The problem is not just the citations, but the formatting, which can be solved by templates. Bearian ( talk) 14:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I got about half-way through the article - verifying the content, removing original research or content that failed verification, formatting the citations, etc. If it is deemed to be a "keep", I am very happy to finish the work. There's a ton of information that I moved to the talk page. If someone can find sources for that, it can be returned. If there were sources found for the other medals (which would explain his career) and the World War II career, it would stand a better chance. If some biographical content could be found, that would help quite a bit.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The article needs a lot less work now than it did before CaroleHenson began her edit (nice job). I think he's borderline notable, but on the upper side of the line. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I had an illuminating conversation today about the Afd process that has put a different slant on things for me. Before 10/23, there weren't a lot of people that read the article, but there has been a minor, but steady interest, the article has been around since 2012, and there are aspects of his career that are notable—so what is the harm in keeping this article? I just struck out some comments I made on 09:05, 6 December 2016. To Bearian's point, I'll go ahead and finish the clean-up of the citations and verification of content to source info - and then we'll also have a better view of things.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC) reply

• I finished what I think is the best I can do at this point. I worked to address the issue raised by K.e.coffman about the undue content from his early career - by leaving the most noteworthy items in the section, removing some of the content that wasn't noteworthy, and putting some of the details in notes. The rest of the article has been verified, reworded based upon source content, and formatted citations.
• There was also some cited content about the Mexican Revolution and USS Worden from articles about the ships he was on, so that's added, too.
• I am not sure if my phraseology is alway right, for instance there is probably a term for the period "Between the two world wars". I'm thinking it's something like inter wars-- I cannot remember. If the article is "kept", it would be great if someone that is more familiar with the topic could review the article to ensure it's properly worded.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC) reply

• You have done great work Carole. If five commands, the Navy Medal for "exacting and hazardous duty of transporting and escorting troops and supplies to European ports through waters infested with enemy submarines and mines" (if that's not for valour I don't know what is), and a day named after him isn't enough then I think we need to take a serious look at our policies. This is exactly the sort of article that readers are hoping to find when they consult the encyclopedia. Philafrenzy ( talk) 19:35, 8 December 2016 (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.