Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Piatt Runkle

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Piatt Runkle

[edit]
Benjamin Piatt Runkle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Only possible claim to notability is being a founding member of a fraternity. Without satisfying WP:N's requirement of having multiple independent reliable sources, that isn't enough--and slavering fraternity sources don't satisfy that at all.GrapedApe (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see great evidence of notability. Being a founder member of an organisation isn't usually enough and he was one rank below that usually considered automatically notable for military officers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I thought that being a colonel was notable. Appointment as a brevet colonel implies that he was considered significant: I undderstan dthis to be a measn of accelerated promotion. There are also hints of notability in his ecclesiastical career, but it is so briefly described that it is difficult to tell. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, a general officer is considered notable, a colonel isn't. "Brevet" just means he was acting above his actual substantive rank - the vast majority of colonels (and generals) in the Civil War were since the army expanded so rapidly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- Findagrave entry here shows rank as Major General, meets WikiProject Military history/Notability guide #3: 'Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; or', and which is already cited in the only reference. Dru of Id (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further, meant include this above: shows grave marker (middle photo) Brevet Major General Volunteers 1865. Dru of Id (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the article with actual ranks — he held ranks in both the volunteer and regular armies and had brevet ranks in both. There are several other things notable about this guy. He was court-martialed and cashiered after charges of embezzlement but was reinstated by an executive order of President Rutherford B. Hayes. He also served as Chief Superintendent of the Freedmen's Bureau for Memphis, TN and later as Chief Superintendent of Freedmen's Affairs, State of Kentucky. He later won a case heard by the US Supreme Court: RUNKLE v. US in 1887. Mojoworker (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Struck-through; see my Keep below) MILHIST notability suggests that if one of the criterion were met then the article subject would have adequate coverage in reliable sources which is missing here. His post war awards shouldn't be used as a rule of significance. Findagrave isn't a reliable source. From WP:SOLDIER, "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they..." ..and then it goes on to state that having rank would qualify. I would like to see more on the sources end. From a previous version of this article it states he was "Breveted Colonel, Brigadier General and Major General of Volunteers, November 9, 1865, for "meritorious services."" All of that in one day, six months after the war was over. It was purely honorary.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced it was purely honorary. It was after the war, but he was still in the army. In this reference that I added to the article, he is repeatedly referred to as Brigadier General Runkle in period citations. Mojoworker (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - difficult case this, but it appears the rank that would have made him notable was purely honourary and after-the-fact. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would suggest that if someone was brevetted major general, even at the end of the war, for meritorious services, that would suggest a certain amount of notability. It does make him stand out from the crowd (many officers ended the war as colonels and were not brevetted to general officer rank, after all). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure why the editors opining for delete are assessing Runkle's notability solely on his military rank. I've added a fair amount of additional information to the article, so you may want to reassess. As I said, he was also Chief Superintendent of Freedmen's Affairs for the State of Kentucky and was involved with the Supreme Court case Runkle v. United States. Mojoworker (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommendation. I would suggest relisting and letting it run for another cycle. The article has been improved mostly by Mojoworker and this is on the right track as he has been adding sources. I'd suggest giving this more time.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. A very notable figure in American history. Well sourced. Thats all. Tinton5 (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for multiple reasons advanced above, plus one that's not much mentioned — the Supreme Court case. Legal scholars publish about figures that play important parts in Supreme Court cases, so being the primary party on one side of a case is a strong indication of notability. Nobody would have heard of Norma McCorvey if she hadn't been in a similar situation. Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would consider his military history to place him as marginal on the notability scale but his involvement in the Supreme Court case lends enough notability to affirm as a Keep.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:50, 26 December 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_Piatt_Runkle&oldid=1142173380"