Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commanding officers of USS Nevada (BB-36)


 * 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 merge to USS Nevada (BB-36). Given that support for merge, delete and keep is about the same, we must conclude that there is consensus to not keep but also no consensus to delete. This leaves a merger as the most consensual outcome.  Sandstein  12:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

List of commanding officers of USS Nevada (BB-36)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The consensus at wt:ships was to not have such lists and instead add notable COs to the article prose. The few notable COs on this page have already been added to the main article making this page needless and redundant. This page offers no other encyclopaedic content. - wolf  05:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Added note:there is currently a consensus at wt:ships against the inclusion of "List(s) of COs" in ship articles, which would make merging a problem. This is why notable COs were added to the main articles's prose. fyi 18:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as proposer, reasons above - wolf  18:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge The commanders of this capital ship are naturally listed in detailed works about it such as USS Nevada, 1916-1946; Battle Born: The Unsinkable USS Nevada BB-36; The War Diaries of the U.S.S. Nevada; Silver State Dreadnought: The Remarkable Story of Battleship Nevada; &c. The nominator has added material from this to the main article, as noted in the nomination.   If we prefer to have this information within the main article, that's reasonable, but we should keep this page for attribution per WP:MAD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've no strong opinion on this, but keeping the page for attribution reasons is a silly argument. That does not require keeping the article.  The page history can be preserved by blanking and redirecting, or moving it to a subpage of the battleship talk page and replacing the content with an explanation of why it is being kept. SpinningSpark 10:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My !vote allows for the possibility of merger. The point is that deletion is not appropriate – see WP:ATD-M. Andrew D. (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep (alternatively - merge to a section in USS Nevada (BB-36), with a redirect to that section). Project consensus does not override a notability guideline - in this case WP:LISTBIO. The list of Nevada commanders is obviously discussed as a set in sources. Furthermore, the individual on this list are notable per - WP:SOLDIER (the billet itself was Captain - a notch below flag SOLDIER(2), many were promoted in their next billet and regardless the ship itself was a capital ship SOLDIER( 7 5)). While the local consensus might apply to smaller ships (the COs of which might not rise up to LISTBIO) - a 2,000 man ship weighing 30,000 tons is a different beast. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you must mean SOLDIER(5), not SOLDIER(7). None of them invented anything as far as I know. SpinningSpark 12:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Though some might have grounds for 8 or NAUTHOR. - e.g. Thomas P. Magruder (, who would meet SOLDIER(2) as a rear admiral regardless). Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to USS Nevada (BB-36). Not a senior enough position to merit a separate article. Many of the individuals will have been notable for later promotions to flag rank, but the list itself is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete changing to Keep - in light of Icewhiz's proof that many are notable, when there are this number it's better to have a separate article and link from the main rather than interrupt the flow of it's text with mentions. The few who are notable have been included in the Nevada article. WP:SOLDIER(5) states IN COMBAT, most of these are peacetime commanders Lyndaship (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Running down the list of full names in this source - rather clearly shows that a significant proportion of them are notable. Many do not have Wiki articles presently - but they would pass notability standards - either by dint of subsequent promotion to rear admiral (captains with a senior billet tend to go up another notch), or combat service on Nevada or a different capital ship. Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * One thing to keep in mind is that far more Captains retire as Captain than are promoted to Rear Admiral (lower half). But that said, the five on this list notable enough for their own bio here, have already been added to the main article. How many, of the remaining 21 on the list, do you feel warrant notability? Were they in command of Nevada during combat? Were they otherwise part of a notable event that involved the ship? Were they promoted to flag rank? Of those that warrant it, why not add them to the main article's prose, in the appropriate chronological section of the history, with refs? Wouldn't that be more informative to the reader, as opposed to just dumping in list of names, with no context and no additional information about them? Not to mention that such a list would be in conflict with the current consensus at Project:Ships. - wolf  16:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Commanding a battleship was generally a senior billet for a Captain. Regardless, running down the list -
 * William S. Sims - notable.
 * Joseph Strauss (admiral) - notable
 * Andrew T. Long - made admiral - notable.
 * William Carey Cole - notable.
 * Thomas P. Magruder - made admiral (and also wrote a book) - notable.
 * William Dugald MacDougall - notable.
 * Luke McNamee - notable.
 * Douglas E. Dismukes - made admiral - notable.
 * John McClane Luby - retired as a captain, however per his Navy Cross citation, he commanded the USS South Dakota (ACR-9) (a large armored cruiser) in WWI action - borderline for SOLDIER(5). First guy here that is possibly not notable.
 * David Wooster Todd - retired Captain,per his WWI navy cross citation on valor. He does have a fee book hits for his stint as Director of Naval Communications.
 * Clarence S. Kempff - made vice admiral, notable.
 * Hilary Herbert Royall - seems to retired Captain, possibly not notable.
 * John J. Hyland - has a notable admiral son with the same name (John Hyland), NOTINHERITED (but perhaps vindicating Davenport's thoughts on thallasophilia - being silly). Seems he only made Captain and being a 1900 Annapolis grad probably retired prior to WWII - so probably not notable, but I might be mistaken due to his son's strong notability and presence in sourcing masking out results on him.
 * William S. Pye - notable.
 * Adolphus Staton - notable.
 * Robert L. Ghormley - notable.
 * Claude B. Mayo - retired Captain, I think he served stateside during WWII. Probably not notable.
 * Robert Alfred Theobald - notable.
 * Francis W. Rockwell (admiral) - notable.
 * Francis .W. Scanland - in command during day of infamy - but was ashore, a lt. cmdr navigated the ship, but he did return aboard on 0915 - 5 minutes after the ship was grounded. served in the engagements of the Coral sea battle of Midway as commander of USS Astoria (CA-34). So - possible SOLDIER(5). It does seem he was awarded the Navy Cross, and that his son did too during WWII - making the two the only father-son duo with a navy cross in WWII. It also seems he may have made commodore, possibly meeting SOLDIER(2).
 * Henry L. Thompson - in command during refit of Nevada. Not sure - awful name for searching (a commodore by the same name commanded the Republic of Texas navy a hundred years prior, and lots of other notable individuals).
 * Howard F. Kingman - commanded Battleship Division 2 in operations meeting SOLDIER(5), made vice-admiral meeting SOLDIER(2)..
 * Willard A. Kitts, III - commanded Nevada in combat, meeting SOLDIER(5). Also made vice admiral, meeting SOLDIER(2).NYT obit
 * Powell M. Rhea - commanded Nevada in combat (e.g. D-Day), made admiral, notable.
 * Homer L. Grosskopf - commanded Nevada in combat, meeting SOLDIER(5), was one of Charles B. McVay III's judges, and seems to retired as admiral.
 * Cecil C. Adell - commanded Nevada after the war (including being sunk as a nuclear bomb target) - which would not rise up to SOLDIER(5). His WWII activities (decorated as navigator of the sunk USS Chicago (CA-29), various stateside duties after injury recovery) do not seem to pass SOLDIER(5). He did retire as Task Force Commander, Key West Force - as a captain. Is mentioned in a bunch of books - but probably not wiki notable.
 * So - 26 COs, 19 are clearly notable. Some of the 7 others are possibly notable as well. Nevada COs are discussed as a set (e.g. ) - clearly meeting WP:LISTPEOPLE. Whatever local consensus there is at project ships - it is trumped by a Wikipedia guideline. Icewhiz (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That is some good work you put in there. The number of notable COs now seems to surpass that on the List of commanding officers of USS Oklahoma (BB-37) (the only other stand-alone "List of COs" article). While that page had some effort put into it, this one seemed to have been abandoned after it was initially typed out (hence the lack of linked officers). But I don't see how this changes anything. There are now more officers to add to the main article, in prose, which will only serve to round it more. As for wp:listpeople, yes that is a guideline, but one on how lists should be created and maintained, it does not say "lists must be made instead of adding entrants into article prose". And a project consensus can certainly taken into account with the decision on what to do with this list. (Its not as if we can just ignore it). But anyway, like I said... good work. -  wolf  21:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Added note: JFTR, I'll add the other notable officers to the main article probably tomorrow (Sat at the latest), and with that done, there'll really be no need for this page. Thanks to Icewhiz's efforts, almost all the COs are notable and can be added to main page, so this list page will be redundant. - wolf  00:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete although it is clear that the individuals commanders are notable I cant see any evidence that all of them are noteworthy to the ship. If any of them were involved in something noteworthy while in command then it would be in the narrative. Just being in command is itself not noteworthy. The list is saying that "Smith commanded the ship for a year and nothing happened but he later did some good but not related to the Nevada". MilborneOne (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:LISTPEOPLE. Consensus at WP:SHIPS is not sufficient to delete articles.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to USS Nevada (BB-36). While the research preformed by Icewhiz is compelling, the statement by MilborneOne that the subjects may not necessarily be notable to the ship is also noteworthy. As such, merging comes across as the best means to handle this content, as per WP:ATD-M. North America1000 16:35, 10 October 2018 (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.