Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander K. Tyree


 * 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. The vast majority of comments voted keep, in large part due to improvements made by editors including Cullen328, Andrew Davidson and Jamesallain85, and the only delete vote other than the nominator was a weak delete. (non-admin closure) Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexander K. Tyree

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable former submariner. Fails WP:BASIC lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Page was previously PRODed but page creator requested restoration: Deletion review/Log/2021 June 23 Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This might be in relation to an ongoing dispute between and, lodged at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, in which I am involved. I am not sure, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I PRODed the page on 7 January 2021, it was De/unPRODed yesterday and so I am proceeding to AFD it. Mztourist (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I recuse from this AfD. Just figured that the uninitiated might want to know of our involvement in the dispute. Further comments will be made at ANI. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. A Navy Cross is about the only real claim to notability, and that's generally not considered enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Hall of Valor site changed its format (the sneaks). Two Navy Crosses, but is that enough? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the issue, there needs to be a set standard so people do not waste their time. In my opinion a double Navy Cross recipient should be notable. If a contemporary person was twice awarded the Navy Cross it would be notable, why wouldn't it be then? The real issue here is the lack of a standard to follow, this process is too subjective. I started the article when WP:Soldier was the standard, and at that time two awards of a second tier medal was sufficient, then they just dropped the standard. Does that mean they should retroactively apply the standard and begin deleting pages? If the individual had not met the standard at the time I would have never created the article in the first place. I am seriously considering avoiding any future contributions simply because I am tired of trying to defend its existence. I have no personal connection with this individual, he was a WWII submarine commander that commanded the USS Bowfin on her last three war patrols and was twice awarded the nations second highest medal. His achievements are of historical value and in my opinion that should be notable. Navy Crosses were and are not just handed out. Jamesallain85


 * Keep If it were just one Navy Cross I could understand and would possibly agree. He was awarded the Navy Cross multiple times. There are several wikipedia pages of military fighter Aces with less than ten kills, nothing close to the Navy Cross in terms of awards and ranks below that of of Colonel or Captain(Navy). If this page is deleted because it fails notability, then I will also nominate those pages because in terms of notability they are simply less notable. In my opinion the standards are unclear, but a multiple winner of the US's second highest award is notable. If the Navy Cross was awarded twice to any sailor in modern times they would surly be considered notable. IAW WP:BIO a person is notable if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." He won the Navy Cross multiple times, to delete the page one would have to argue that the Navy Cross in not either well known or significant, which simply isn't the case. I think there should be a clear cut standard for notability for military biographical pages. Is an Ace notable? Is a multiple winner of the Navy Cross notable enough? Is a General Officer notable? These questions should be clear cut, I am tired of trying to contribute what I feel follows wikipedia's guide lines, only to have all my work deleted and have to constantly defend its existence. Until things are more clearly defined in way of notability I will refrain from contributing in the future. Jamesallain85
 * He was apparently awarded the Navy Cross twice. Since WP:SOLDIER was deprecated, multiple awards of second tier medals is a debatable basis for notability. He fails WP:BASIC because he hasn't "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Your dePROD rationale claimed there were more sources available about him, so if they exist they might amount to SIGCOV.Mztourist (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * When you originally placed the nominated the article for deletion the first time, WP:SOLDIER was still the standard, and changed shortly thereafter. As far as multiple awards of second tier medals being debatable, it shouldn't be. I feel it was a mistake to remove WP:SOLDIER as a guideline because in the end it simply made everything unclear. If multiple second tier awards does not meet notability then WP:SOLDIER should have been edited to reflect the standard. Would three second tier awards be notable enough? The decision of notability should be more objective and less subjective. What is widely reported? Two, three, or four articles? There should be a set objective standard to follow, so when I start to write an article I can check off the list before I start wasting my time. I spend too much time over petty issues and less time contributing to documenting history, which is the objective. Jamesallain85
 * WP:SOLDIER is gone. You are welcome to try to raise support for a replacement if your time permits it. Mztourist (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Oh I see you have but its not gaining much support. Mztourist (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't abide by WP:Soldier when it was the standard. All of my pages you nominated to delete was while the standard still stood. Jamesallain85 (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agreed with some parts of SOLDIER and disagreed with others. It was never a WP:SNG and many people ignored that and the fact that SIGCOV in multiple RS was always required. Mztourist (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - a double award of the Navy Cross should be notable in my view but the coverage in RS is admittedly skinny. I came across a couple of books in which he is mentioned, but those are verging on passing mentions rather than substantive. Zawed (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep He went on to become a maths professor and so there is clearly scope to expand the article and policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The article says nothing about a PhD, only a master's degree in math. His tenure as an instructor according to the article appears to have been short as well. If you have access to more solid sources about his academic experience maybe you could add them to the article. Intothatdarkness 18:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Two Navy Crosses (second-level awards) is clearly enough for notability per WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. There is one problem of double standards and another of encyclopedic usefulness. By double standards I mean the ANYBIO#1, the "a well-known and significant award or honor", is imprecise, and I very much regard that WP:SOLDIER was retired. How are we to know now if this award is well-known or not? It's the "second-highest military decoration" for the US Navy. Is second-highest major enough? How about the third? Fourth? Why did the experts at milhist decide to withdraw their guidance? That's unfortunate. In light of it being gone, I am going to say that second-highest specialized award for anything doesn't cut it for me. Which takes me to - what do the sources say about him? And we have very little here. Not even the context of him receiving the awards. As a rule of thumb, I'd consider him notable if we had at least a short biography of him that would tell us what did he do to receive his two second-tier awards. Heck, right now we don't even know which war, if any, he received them in. If this article is expanded and notability is more apparent, ping me and I'll happily reconsider. But right now, in light of WP:SOLDIER being gone, I am not prepared to treaty any non-first-tier military award as conveying notability to anyone. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete along the lines of Piotrus above. Intothatdarkness 16:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've decided to withdraw my vote, see discussion below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While I understand your reasons for changing your vote, I am going to remain in the weak delete column. Being able to verify sources is important to me, even if the concept seems to be under appreciated by others (they are of course entitled to their opinion on the subject, just as I am to mine). I suspect the end decision will be "Keep" in any case. And to Cullen328's comment below...I have known a fair number of military veterans who served between 20 and thirty years and went on to teaching careers. It's actually somewhat common for American military veterans within a certain time period (which you'll notice if you look at the post-service careers of many Vietnam-era officers). So no, based on my experience I don't consider that especially notable. Intothatdarkness 22:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:HEY and the two Navy Crosses - wolf  22:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEYMAN. ——  Serial  11:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see that WP:HEY is even close to being satisfied here. What has been added are a photo; the book The Washingtons that apparently covers his early life and is unavailable online; 3 minor newspapers that are unavailable online unless you have a newspapers.com subscription; Silent victory: the U.S. submarine war against Japan also inaccessible online which is only a source for details about his much more famous brother; and then more from Hall of Valor which is debatable as an RS. The original inacessible newspaper article (presumably an obituary given the date) remains as do fleetorganisation.com and navsource which are both blogs. I don't see any of these as providing the necessary indepth coverage required for WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible." In any case, the Washington's book covers more than his early life as it's a "detailed biographical narrative". Andrew🐉(talk) 15:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Equally the sources may be unreliable, contain minimal content and are just used to fluff up a page and a HEY argument, but we'll never know because we can't read what they say. Strange that a "detailed biographical narrative" is not used for any other purpose than provide date and place of birth and confirm his brother. Mztourist (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you are still unsatisfied, I have taken the time to clip a few of the more important articles and linked in the references. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Mztourist's contrary view is not equal because it is based only on ignorance. I know that the Washington book provides a detailed account because I have read a page of it, as I cited.  I didn't detail its lengthy account of his wartime service because that would take some time and I have plenty of other things to do while my usual reward is personal attacks, insults, and vexatious interference.  But it's being so cheerful as keeps me going so here's a brief sample, now I've found the page again, "A few minutes after midnight on Feb. 17, the tubes were readied when radar picked up two small, fast ships which Tyree calculated were enemy destroyers.  At 3,000 yards one of the ships—indeed a Japanese destroyer—headed straight for the surfaced sub.  Tyree ordered the bridge cleared and prepared to set up for a "down the throat" shot. ..." Andrew🐉(talk) 23:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So Andrew you accuse me of ignorance, but then complain about suffering "personal attacks, insults, and vexatious interference" no double standards there. So the Washington book has some details about a torpedo shot, do you really regard that as indepth coverage of Tyree? Silly question, of course you do. Mztourist (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mztourist tells us that they are unable to access that source and so they are ignorant as to its contents – that's just a plain fact. I've studied it more closely and so am better informed.  The quotation I provided is just a sample.  There's plenty more where that came from and so this is a clear pass of WP:SIGCOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Andrew you very clearly weren't just referring to me not knowing what the Washington book says.Mztourist (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mztourist made the same complaint about other sources too. And it appears that they were unaware of our long-standing principle that Sources do  have to be available online....  Their hostile position was therefore based on both a lack of knowledge of the sources and a lack of knowledge of our policies. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Being able to verify sources is important to me, even if its not to you, especially when a bunch of inaccessible refs are added to a page and then you and your ARS crew claim HEY. Mztourist (talk) 09:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I second the concern for verifiability. I've done some cleanup of articles that were "saved" and then abandoned...the amount of simply incorrect information I was able to remove and improvements made were all done thanks to verifiable reliable sources. This is compounded when (as seems to happen far too often) unverifiable sources are added without page numbers or other basic information. Some people may be ok with crap articles with bad information lingering for years...I don't happen to be one of them. Intothatdarkness 16:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that Intothatdarkness has only ever created one article: United States Army Remount Service. Most of the citations in that article do not have URLs and so they are not readily accessible online.  See WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Tyree is mentioned 35 times in the 1985 book Bowfin, published by HarperCollins. That plus the references in the article show quite clearly that Tyree is notable. I've expanded the article and added references. It is clear that any editor who can get a copy of that book can easily expand this article further. The fact that Chester W. Nimitz personally awarded one of Tyree's Navy Crosses is a point in favor of notability because Nimitz was the senior admiral in charge of US naval forces in the Pacific during WWII. The Navy Cross is a highly prestigious honor for bravery and Tyree was awarded it twice. Tyree's involvement with the USS Bowfin Submarine Museum and Park at Pearl Harbor is another point towards his notability. The submarine he commanded is preserved as an extremely popular museum in Hawaii, and in the spirit of full disclosure, I have toured that submarine. says they do not know whether the Navy Cross is a notable medal and was not able to determine which war, if any, Tyree won those medals. I guess Piotrus was looking at a much earlier version of the article because it is quite clear that the war was World War II and that winning the Navy Cross requires unusual bravery in combat, not good service in peacetime. So, I respectfully request that Piotrus re-evaluate their !vote in light of improvement of the article. Belittling his twelve years as an associate professor of mathematics is a cheap shot. How many people do you know about that have served 30 years in the armed forces, then get a master's degree in math, and teach for another 12 years after that? Cullen328   Let's discuss it  02:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * if that's the case then why didn't you add Bowfin as a reference and add some detail? Instead you copied more information in from Hall of Valor, an excerpt from a Hawaii tourist guide, tourist information from another minor newspaper and a non-independent source, the Bowfin museum. The fact that Nimitz awarded a Navy Cross isn't notable unless you can show that he personally only awarded a few. Mztourist (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I didn't add anything from the Bowfin book because I just learned of its existence a couple of hours ago, and not even Amazon could get it to me that quickly. However, I will buy a copy if you pay half. Deal? Please stop criticizing reliable sources as "inaccessible" because that is an invalid argument for deletion. Adding referenced encyclopedic content to the article is a good thing despite your implications to the contrary. Non-independent reliable sources are perfectly OK to flesh out non-controversial content about notable people. I challenge you to produce a reliable source that says that Chester Nimitz handed out Navy Crosses like popcorn. I will be waiting for that reliable source. It is Tyree himself who is notable, and Nimitz's attention is more evidence of notability, not notability itself. But you knew all that, didn't you? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * you make a big deal of all the mentions in the Bowfin book, but then don't add it because you haven't actually seen it...right. The whole point I am making is that if books and newspapers are inaccessible, we have no way of determining if they provide "referenced encyclopedic content" or are just fluff. I don't need to prove how many Navy Crosses Nimitz handed out, you're the one who is pushing it as evidence of Tyree's notability, which is pure OR. As I see it this page has been bulked out with a lot of inaccesible references and non-independent sources, because there is clearly so little in the way of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject." All I see is "trivial coverage... by secondary sources... not... sufficient to establish notability." Mztourist (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the articles are now visible, I posted above in response that I clipped the articles and linked them in the references, I believe anyone can now view them. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the version I was looking was a tiny stub, the article has been much improved. Btw, do we know the dates, even rough, of when he received the Navy Crosses? I couldn't find that information in the current text. In either case, this does address the lack of context, the article is useful to the reader now. That said, WP:ITSUSEFUL... Btw, would the article be kept under WP:SOLDIER if it was still active? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , it is clear from the sources already in the article that his first Navy Cross was awarded by Chester Nimitz sometime in 1945, well before the Japanese surrender, and that the second Navy Cross was awarded after the war ended, for the 9th Bowfin patrol in the final months of the war. I think that the dates that the medal was awarded are much less important than the descriptions of the submarine patrols that he commanded in the Sea of Japan in the last year of the war. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As for WP:NSOLDIER, that is irrelevant because it is inoperative, so why spend time discussing it? The guy is notable. He commanded three of nine patrols of probably the most famous US submarine serving in the Pacific Theater and a book from a reputable publisher mentions him 35 times. Plus all the other sources. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  05:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mhm. I am withdrawing my delete vote as I think the book+your expansion push it sufficiently to the gray zone. Cheers. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep in case of doubt, I lean towards inclusion MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The article was nominated for deletion when it had only one sentence in it plus an infobox. It is now a full article.  This person won the Navy Cross twice, and winning a notable award makes anyone notable. WP:ANYBIO   D r e a m Focus  18:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Point of information, that is not what ANYBIO says. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor is not the same as "Person has one an award that is notable of itself to have a Wikipedia article". Otherwise anyone with a Purple heart (aka any US soldier killed or wounded after 1917) would have an article. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep this is getting tiresome and pointy. Clearly there is enough in the sources that are there already for SIGCOV ie GNG, including some information about his early and post-war life, and there is still more to be added. He has an albeit fairly brief obit in WaPo... There is also certainly going to be more in the various histories of the submarine service, given Tyree commanded the famous USS Bowfin on two or three war patrols and was awarded the Navy Cross twice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to awards and the coverage in Bowfin. Have I seen Bowfin?  Yes.  Libraries are pretty good things, right?  You can borrow for an hour, or join the waitlist for a full-length lending period thanks to the great Internet Archive: Link.  The first three pages introducing the main text are pretty much dedicated to him.  Later, you won't have any content in Chapters 8, 9, and 10 if you remove him.  Do I think anyone will get a full-length loan?  No.  This seems pretty pointy as others have stated.  Will I add any content from the source?  No, the source WP:NEXISTS, so the article should be kept.  There appear to be parties interested in improving the article here, so I hope the link is useful to them.  Regards, 2pou (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Added the book to the talk page in a refideas template as well. -2pou (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.