Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euan Blair (2nd nomination)


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 05:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Euan Blair
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Following talk page discussion and per WP:NOTINHERITED. His only claim to fame is being the son of Tony Blair. Pontificalibus (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 22:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment While it is noted that there are a number of reliable sources mentioning him, this is not enough in itself to justify retaining the article and does not preclude deletion. None of those articles are substantively about himself other than in relation to his actions as the son of Tony Blair.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 1,420 google news hits, some of them have to establish notability UltraMagnusspeak 21:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which ones, exactly? A search engine result page is not a source citation, and hit counts mean nothing at all, as should be well known (at least by Wikipedia editors) by now. Uncle G (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The first three Gnews hits are from major UK newspapers, and as you should know, Gnews tends to only show reliable sources --Ultra<SPAN STYLE="color: #0079e0">Magnus</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="color:red;background-color:black;">speak</SPAN> 05:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: That assertion is not true at all. World Net Daily shows up in Google News, and it's not an acceptable source.  In addition, Gnews brings up tons of hits to non-notable blogs.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agreed. The percentage of Google News hits that is reliable is much higher than that of general Google web hits, but we still need to examine each individual potential source to determine its reliability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. I agree that individuals shouldn't have a page on Wikipedia just because they are related to somebody notable. However, Euan Blair has, rightly or wrongly, attracted a lot of media attention for various reasons, so I'd say he passes the GNG that way. I certainly don't thing WP:NOTINHERITED should be interpreted so that all media coverage arising from an individual's association with a notable person should be automatically disregarded. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Although his notability primarily derives from being the son of Tony Blair, Euan Blair generates enough media attention in his own right to warrant his own article. In that regard he is different to perhaps the younger Blair children (Nicky, Kathryn and Leo) or the Cameron children whose notability is only ever in the context of their parents. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge back to his parents. So far he has achieved nothing notable apart from being his father's son.  This led the press to pick up and report his doings what would be WP:TRIVIA for any one else, but that does not stop them being NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment for the record - I originally closed this as keep with merging discussion on the talk page. Per a subsequent suggestion, I reverted the close since this is a WP:BLP, after all, and there are some concerns about sourcing. Tim Song (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-public figure. The only things that he is known for are that he behaved like a typical sixteen-year-old when he was sixteen, and that one of his mother's indiscretions involved his student accommodation. The subject has not sought publicity, or done anything that would have come anywhere near being notable if he wasn't his parents' child, so we should leave him in peace. The only bit of content that is at all encyclopedic is the sentence about the controversy over his student flat, and that is already covered in Cherie Blair's article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom and per Phil Bridger above. I just removed a paragraph that discusses his appendectomy. Talk about trivia. I also notice repeated BLP violations that are hanging around for months at a time - almost six in this one example. At best it could be merged to Cherie Blair, but right now it's just a classic example of WP:NOTINHERITED - A l is o n  ❤ 01:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is not notable in his own right, tabloid style media coverage is not enough to show notability. Kevin (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - How is any of this notability not related to his father, and more importantly how is anything that goes into the parent article independent of what goes into the subject article? Shadowjams (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: he cannot inherit the fame from his father. Alexius08 (talk) 11:51, 21 October 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.