Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Wells-Pestell


 * 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, per the verifiability concerns. Skomorokh, barbarian   00:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mark Wells-Pestell

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I couldn't verify any of the biographical details bar a couple of news reports about the dismissal from the ambulance service, and even if I could, I don't think an ex-special forces soldier with a Queen's Commendation for Bravery (which is actually a civilan medal) would pass as a notable person by default. There are otherwise definite wp:soapbox qualities about this whole article. MickMacNee (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep it I found this gentleman to be very interesting not just his military service ( which there is a lot more than has been listed )but also his heritage and what he is doing now. The QCB is not just a civil decoration but is open to the Military as well. I think the fact alone that he appears to be taking on a alleged somewhat corrupt organisation as the London Ambulance Service and being the Grandson of a former Labour Health Minister and peer would by its own make him a notable person, would it not??? ( no soap box ) I think he has alot more to say and do and there is a much bigger picture that will become apparent soon but i am conscious about WP rules and regs!!--Sebastian king (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is cute but written poorly, not wikified, no source3s, etc etc. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can seek advice at New contributors' help page if you want to learn more about our rules and how to show notability, but there's nothing new in your post that I hadn't already considered I'm afraid, so its still a delete from me. MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's an interesting article. But the subject's notability appear to come from a single incident so the article appears to me to violate our BLP-1E guideline. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Delete - I agree that this is a BLP1E case. JohnCD (talk) 18:35, 18 November 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.