Talk:Lionel Blackman

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lionel Blackman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Law Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 February 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Redirect to Esher and Walton (UK Parliament constituency)[edit]

This page was under consideration for deletion. The result was no consensus, which I think means it stays? It was then redirected to Esher and Walton (UK Parliament constituency). This effectively deleted it so I un-redirected it. It also caused a loop in that page when you clicked on Lionel Blackman (as he is the Lib Dem candidate). This loop was being removed and reverted when I last looked. Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under Wikipedia guidelines this person is not notable. The sources used in the article are largely not appropriate for notability purposes; we do not use Wikipedia as a source, and we do not use primary sources as a guide to notability. Some of the sources I checked were not used appropriately - for example, the statement "Lionel Blackman is a leading UK human rights lawyer", was cited to this source which only says: "Lionel Blackman is a solicitor-advocate and senior partner of a practice specialising in criminal litigation." And that source was a press release and so of dubious value when assessing notability. The most legitimate claim I could see was "In 1999 he was the first solicitor to lead and win a case in the House of Lord", which is appropriately sourced: [1]. However, the nearest criteria on such matters is: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" - WP:ANYBIO. And the footnote to explain that is: "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians." And that hasn't happened here. Essentially this is an article on a solictor, and though this person had done some good work in his field, it isn't clear enough where he meets our inclusion criteria. As he is a political candidate, we redirect those to the nearest appropriate page. The AfD was closed as "no consensus", which defaults as "no action", and that was the reading of the admin who closed the discussion. My reading of the situation is that this article does not meet our inclusion criteria. I'll redirect back, and if anyone still disagrees with my conclusions, I'll be quite happy to take it back to the community either for a DRV or another AfD. SilkTork *^YES! 16:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary above is advocating that the page be deleted. But this page was considered for deletion. I quote from your section above: 'The AfD was closed as "no consensus", which defaults as "no action", and that was the reading of the admin who closed the discussion'. I agree with this. However you then continue: 'My reading of the situation is that this article does not meet our inclusion criteria'. So, it seems to me, you agree that the article was considered for deletion, that the result was that the page should stay, but since you disagree with that conclusion, you are going to delete the page by stealth by redirecting it to a different subject?

It's very generous of you to say you will be happy to take it back to the community. But I don't think that's necessary. It's been considered and the result was it should stay. Clearly on a disputed case someone is going to be unhappy with the result. But Wikipedia is a community and people need to accept community decisions - not try, try and try again to get the result they want by wearing everyone else down. Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]