Talk:Lionel Blackman

Redirect to Esher and Walton (UK Parliament constituency)

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)

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)

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)