Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Rundle (British naval officer)


 * 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   speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom after excellent sources found DGG (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Mary Rundle (British naval officer)
'''Dear Administrator: I am withdrawing this AFD; I concede notability based on the yeoman work of User:Jezhotwells, who has also kindly fixed the article. Please remove the AFD template at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)'''


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedy delete: No proof of subject's existence despite exhaustive Internet search; completely unsourced (except for bogus "Who's Who") by editor who created the article as "New entry from personal knowledge"; article's creator inactive since Nov. 2008 Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-notable, not non-existent, individual, in light of info provided by User:Paste (see below). There are other legitimate Mary Rundles on the Internet, including one associated with the Royal College of Nursing, which is how I came across this article. I want to emphasize that I scoured newspaper archives, peerage websites, London Gazette (which includes all kinds of honours bestowed on British citizens), even genealogy sites(www.ancestry.com, which has entries for other countries besides the US) to no avail. If this woman turned 100 two years ago as the author claims she would have received a telegram from the Queen, again, no mention. The bogus Who's Who citation (which includes no year, volume number, pages, etc.), as well as the "New entry from personal knowledge" edit summary are pretty much give-aways. It's not typical vandalism, I agree, but there is no empirical evidence of the subject's existence non-notability and as such can't/shouldn't be included in any valid encyclopaedia. The only other site that mentions this person is a mirror website (DuckDuckGo), which just copies Wikipedia info.  Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) AFD withdrawn. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Unless I am mistaken she certainly seems to have existed see and fathers dates are correct, see  Paste  Let’s have a chat. 22:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The first link provided by User:Paste is invalid and the second contains no record when I searched for "Mary Rundle" by name. I know that Mark Rundle, her alleged father, existed because I am the one who inserted his years of birth/death (check the edit history). However the only other info on Mark Rundle are his military positions/awards (e.g. Rear Admiral, Engineer Commander, DSO); no personal info re wife or family. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment It would seem that if she has a CBE she would be traceable but it doesn't seem to be possible on the internet. Maybe there is a book somewhere that lists all the recipients. Drawn Some (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Drawn Some, if the article's creator had used Who's Who as a source, which I will wager he didn't, given his edit summary about "personal knowledge", then all the info that is missing would not be missing. The person who created the article did so as a vanity page for someone he or his family knew, and exaggerated the importance. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm I'm thinking that once you hit 100 years then NOT being in the newspaper is probably the best thing. Drawn Some (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why, what's wrong with being a centenarian? Anyway, she is non-notable. The first link provided by User:Paste did work after all and does confirm that one "Rundle, Mary Beatrice (Miss)" was an Women's Royal Naval Service (WRNS) Officer, but contains no information at all regarding her activities, positions, etc. or anything that would make her notable. There is no proof she was awarded the CBE. The second link website comes up with nothing when you search for the name Mary Rundle. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that means she's not notable, just that UK newspapers haven't necessarily made their archives from the 1930s and 1940s available online. We are allowed to use real references, not just Google. The author added a lot of material to various articles and there is no reason to suspect it to be a hoax, just OR. But that doesn't mean sources aren't available at a library. Drawn Some (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Drawn Some, again, if the article's creator had used Who's Who as a source, which he claimed, but obviously didn't and given his edit summary about "personal knowledge" it's pretty apparent that this is a page created someone he or his family knew, and exaggerated her importance. If she had been awarded the CBE, I would have found it when I was going over the London and Edinburgh Gazettes. An article created solely from WP:OR, little of which can be confirmed is not an article that should remain on Wikipedia. And as far as the creator's other edits I certainly think they should be reviewed; I'll do so when I get the chance, for POV, OR, etc. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that if she did get a CBE she is notable and should be included in the encyclopedia.  A Google search is not reliable for events that happened 50 years ago, 40 years ago, whenever,  Just saying we ought to confirme that one point before pulling the delete trigger.  Anything less would be irresponsible. Drawn Some (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to note, possessing the award of the CBE would not confer notability by Wikipedia's guidelines and not automatically cement the person an article in the encyclopaedia. However, searching the London Gazette's archives here should be able to give a reference for the award of the decoration on Rundle. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Being related to notable people does not make you notable. And there's no evidence this person is related to anyone notable - the  only info I can find on the alledged father marrying   has him doing so 40 years after Mary Rundle is supposed to have been born. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The Times Digital Archive shows that Mary Rundle, WRNS was awarded a CBE in the Military Division, Thursday, Jun 10, 1948; pg. 5; Issue 51094; col F,
 * Further to above Miss M B Rundle, CBE is listed as a Vice-President of the WRNS Benevolent Trust in this report 31 December 2007
 * Also at in 2004


 * Also at the National Portrait Gallery


 * Rundle, Mary Beatrice (Miss) is listed at {http://www.unithistories.com/officers/WRNS_officersR.html} looks eminently notable to me Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * and her service on Royal Commission on                         the Coal Industry in Alberta in 1935  Jezhotwells (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable based on evidence provided by Jezhotwells. Article needs work, though. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * AFD withdrawn as of this date and time. I am convinced by Jezhotwells contributions that the subject is notable. Nonetheless I do repeat that the article as created by original creator based on "personal experience" was unacceptable and completely unsourced. Anyway live and learn. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:10, 28 May 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.