Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard K. Hulse


 * 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   delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard K. Hulse

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable U.S. Civil War lieutenant. I guess I can call myself a "weak delete" on this one, since on one hand I don't generally object to legitimately historical material even though minor, but on the other I'd hate to think what would happen if we permitted articles for any equivalently accomplished modern lieutenant (and above). If the author really has more to add that would lend any degree of notability (see talk page), I'm willing to hear it, but otherwise sadly I just can't see it at all.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 18:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC) I think anybody who had such a high rank in the Civil War should be made notable, but we are unable to find much of anything on this guy. You can't compare him to Ulysses S Grant. At least not yet.(MDesjardinss (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Delete. One article in the Civil War Times is not enough to demonstrate notability. --NellieBly (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete References not sufficient to establish notability. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: with all due respect to MDesjardinss, first lieutenant (or even captain, as the lead states he was a first liuetenant and body says captain) is not a high rank at all. Indeed, within the Australian Army currently the majority of new officers that graduate from Duntroon do so with the equivalent rank. Hence, they are the most junior officers in our Army. In the ACW I would assume that a first lieutenant was the most senior lieutenant within a company and therefore probably the company 2ic or in command of the senior platoon. If he was a captain, then he was a company commander. Either way, neither of those positions by themselves are notable and without an expansion to the article or a claim that he was the recipient of a notable award (i.e. MOH or multiple second level awards) I don't see that it meets the notability guidelines. The military history project as written something of a general criteria for notability of military personnel. It is contained here. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed; there would have been tens of thousands of lieutenants in the US Army at any given time during the Civil War. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete How many untold millions of lieutenants would we be adding if we started adding them. Not notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A captain is a high rank (for the record). Anything above Sergeant is a commanding officer, and you dont get that by licking popsicles. It takes years to become an officer, let alone a captain. He was a captain (never mustered). Yes there is not alot out there on him, but that is because the one article was SOLELY devoted to him. It just is effed up that alot of people who fought in wars who did something heroic can't be kept here, even when they are a CO, because someone on the internet deems them "not important". Okay. I don't know this person who i created the page for, but I liked the story.Phaeton23 (talk) (UTC)
 * With all due respect, as someone with military experience I can state categorically that you are wrong. A captain is not a high rank, and a sergeant is not a commanding officer. A lieutenant commands a platoon (roughly 30 men), a captain might be a company 2ic or historically a company commander (about 120 men). A captain commanding a company would then be an OC (officer commanding). A battalion commander or above is a CO (commanding officer) and they would be a lieutenant colonel or above, in command of a unit of between 500 to 1,000 men (or women) [depending upon branch of service and historical period]. Also the project's notability guidelines have been produced by concensus, largely with the input of many users who are either currently serving or have served so have no reason to deny heroes their due. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable military officer, lack of non-trivial reliable-sources fails WP:GNG and therefore fails notability. Skinny87 (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not a matter of rank but of sourcing. The source seems satisfactory and the arguments against all seem to be the weak argument of WP:ALLORNOTHING. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very junior officer (despite claims to the contrary) with no great claims to notability. With all due respect to Colonel Warden, notability is not just a matter of sourcing but of achievements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. For the record, in response to AustralianRupert, I never said a sergeant was a CO. So because he was not awarded for his valor, that makes him.....nothing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaeton23 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it makes him one of countless thousands of junior officers throughout history. Are you advocating we have an article on every single lieutenant or captain who ever lived? Surely not! There are many thousands serving in the US Army today alone. Not having an article on Wikipedia doesn't make one nothing, now, does it? -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please let me clarify lest I am being misunderstood, no one is saying that this person is a "nothing". I'm sure that he did his duty and was worthy of respect, however, it does not mean that he is notable by the definitions of notability currently used by the Military History project. These criteria are listed here. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand he is a junior officer, even though he was promoted to Captain. Due to the fact that neither his commanders nor the President gave him an award, his actions are "enough" for wikipedia standards? is that what is missing? My grandfather served in the Army and was a Captain, but I'm not making him a page. Mr. Hulse exemplified bravery in the war, and considering he lived through some of the bloodiest battles (not including Antietam and Gettysburg) and he saved alot of fellow soldiers, with no brass, copper, silver, gold, or any other medal given to him by a superior, he is deemed unimportant (by Wiki standards). Also, this man had some ties to important people. Why doesnt wiki make a special section for all soldiers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaeton23 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You could say the same about every other junior officer who has fought in a war. That's many thousands in each world war, for instance. We simply cannot make a page about each one. So ask the question: why is this gentleman special? The answer is that he isn't. That doesn't make him a nothing. It just makes him like the vast majority of people in the world: ordinary. He was caught up in a war, he served with distinction, he survived. That doesn't make him stand out from the crowd. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2009 (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.