Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyle F. Bull


 * 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. (non-admin closure) —  Za  wl  15:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Lyle F. Bull

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, does not meet guidelines found in WP:MILPEOPLE.

BLP article that has no hope of going anywhere beyond stub status. Article subject has held commands, however, there is nothing notable about his commands or career that merits an encyclopedia article. References in the article are nothing-burgers, as well; all five are from self-published or non-major sources and do not meet BLP guidelines. The highlight of the article seems to be his receiving of the Navy Cross, however, many Naval and Marine Corps officers receive the award during wartime. Doing so is notable career-wise and on a DD-214, but still doesn't make for encyclopedic notability or meeting GNG.

As far as the guideline, MILPEOPLE, when looking at the few sources in the article, Bull is only mentioned in passing and, therefore, "should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article".  -- ψ λ  ●  ✉  14:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * keep According to WP:MILNG flag officers are notable and as a retired admiral he was definitely a flag officer.Sandals1 (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That's not what the guideline states. In total, regarding flag officers, it states: "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they...Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents...".  Even at his rank, he did not receive significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources.  Thus, the article fails to meet WP:GNG as well as the notability required for an article per WP:MILNG.  -- ψ λ   ●  ✉  01:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)   -- ψ λ   ●  ✉  01:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It says being a flag officer carries the presumption of being notable. I thought "presumption" meant something like "taken to be true although not for certain". Since you can't prove a negative--that is that there isn't enough coverage--I assumed that he met the standards. Otherwise, you're just using the GNG and there's no point in having MILNG. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding the notability standards on Wikipedia.Sandals1 (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Mild keep He's got two indicia of notability, flag rank and second-highest decoration.  On the other hand, neither of the positions listed as commands are commands.  There's quite a difference between being a commander and being a deputy.  I'd think tagging it for needing expansion would be more appropriate.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with keeping it if there was anything else out there on him to expand the article, but, there isn't. What we've got is all there is, all there ever will be.  Further, what's there isn't supported by the kind of sources we need for a BLP.   -- ψ λ   ●  ✉  15:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "What we've got is all there is, all there ever will be." And you know that how? I very much doubt that's all the information we'll ever have on an officer who commanded one of the world's largest ships and was deputy commander of a fleet. Having only a limited amount of info now does not equal only having limited info forever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For one thing, the man is approaching 80 and in a wheelchair. His career has been over for a long, long time.  For another, can you find anything more about him?  I sure can't.  Unless something more is revealed in a future obituary, there's nothing left to make this BLP stub with inadequate sourcing get better.   -- ψ λ   ●  ✉  21:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you're assuming that because that's all anyone has written as yet that's all there is to write. This is blatant rubbish, as Wikipedia is a work in progress. Articles do not spring into existence fully formed. They're added to over the years. Many articles that began as two-line stubs have developed into long and useful articles. That's how it works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as a flag officer per WP:SOLDIER. No brainer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - He's a flag officer and meets WP:SOLDIER.-- Georgia Army Vet  Contribs  Talk  22:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Another wonderful example of the weak wording of our guidelines: "it is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify" if they're a flag officer. But what does this presumption mean? It is argued that there isn't sufficient coverage. You can't prove a negative, but you still have to prove a positive: that this guy passes the GNG. The text after those eight points is pretty clear. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Drmies is correct. Following the eight points listed in WP:MILPEOPLE, the guideline text reads: ''"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.


 * It is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mention above is not necessarily non-notable; ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. For example, Teddy Sheean, despite having only received a relatively low-level military decoration, is notable per the guidance set out in the WP:GNG due to the level of coverage he has received in reliable sources."


 * Based on the above, Bull does not merit a stand-alone article. This is further testimony to the article needing to be deleted (or merged into another article, as appropriate).    -- ψ λ   ●  ✉  20:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Reopen
 * Keep I added a number of refs. His action on 30 Oct. 1967 is covered in quite a few books, and his subsequent activities as an A-6 aircrew are covered by a couple. Was a flag officer (meeting SOLDIER). Several passing mentions as a flag officer. Regarding "no hope of going anywhere beyond stub status" - that's not necessarily bad, but we still have possible coverage in memoirs and/or obits.Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Za  wl  17:18, 10 September 2017 (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.