Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Blunden

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. Consensus that notability is met by virtue of the position. (non-admin closure) MarginalCost (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Blunden[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns. No independent references about this firefighter. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep - I would agree that the article could be improved, but internet searches do turn up some news and other results, though less than I would expect. In terms of notability the key issue is whether the post he holds makes him notable. I would lean towards suggesting that it does. I certainly do not think it could be argued that the office of Chief Fire Officer of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is not notable. In this position, he is in charge of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service which is now the only fire service in Scotland and is the largest unified fire brigade in the United Kingdom. It is also a post of national significance as it is directly under the Scottish Government. Of course he has only been in the post a relatively short time, and I think this is a factor in why the coverage of him in the media to date has been relatively limited. Dunarc (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would also say that someone holding a position of head of the fire (or police) service of a country of 5 million people should be presumed notable. I have just been looking at similar pages (eg Dany Cotton, Cressida Dick, the heads of the London fire and police services) - they have been in their positions longer, so there is more news about them (though not all yet reflected in Dany Cotton's article ....), but as the position has ultimate responsibility for deployment and decisions regarding the whole of the service, I would suggest that it is similar to WP:MILPEOPLE #3, "Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff)". (Probably there are guides somewhere to the relative ranks of para-military services like police and fire, compared to military services?) RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chief fire officer for the whole of Scotland. Clearly notable per common sense. Unfortunately there are no guidelines about the notability of police and fire officers, but I agree with User:RebeccaGreen that WP:SOLDIER or something similar should probably apply equally to other uniformed services. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2019 (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.