Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald William Rutledge


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Donald William Rutledge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTABILITY. Subject received an OBE, which while some indicator, is too common to achieve proper level of notability itself (hundreds given out each year). War medals, while reflecting an honorable service, are the sort given out by the millions. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is this, but that is all the additional information I could find, and it doesn't provide substantial coverage. I hate deleting historical subjects like this, but this appears to not meet GNG or WP:BIO.    78.26   (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 03:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 03:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 03:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The article has been expanded Waitamata (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication of notability, not notable as a hairdresser or tobacconist. Fails WP:MEMORIAL. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Historical subjects really need to have done something that affects future generations directly I think. There is nothing in this article that really supports any encyclopaedic interest. Did he do or achieve anything during his life that somebody else in those roles would not have reasonably also been expected to do? No. --gilgongo (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * keep per OBE. Where recipients of OBEs both recieve them and die within the span of either papers past or modern digital newspaper collections they are pretty much always found notable. The fact the there's a span of time without online newspapers doesn't make those people less notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the same consistency of results that you were; even if I was, I'm not sure that I'd interpret that as saying "OBEs are always notable", as opposed to "mostly, the non-notable folks with OBEs aren't generally having articles created about them." Nat Gertler (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This article complies with the Wiki Five Pillars. Waitamata (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please help by putting this article into WikiProject New Zealand as a "New Zealand people stub(s)" 20:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waitamata (talk • contribs)

In little New Zealand, of only a few million people, people who are ANZACs and get an OBE are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.220.210 (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * While I can certainly believe that they garner some respect at times, as is often accorded nobility, I find it hard to believe that being a rank-and-file member of the military inherently gains notability; there are too many people who do good service for that to be true. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand history is smaller and shorter in time than the USA but it is still valued by New Zealanders, particularly ANZAC troops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.220.210 (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

In this country people who become Life Members of a RSA such as Auckland must be notable for what they have contributed.

How many people get community buildings named in honour of them?
 * 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.