Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Blair (senior)


 * 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   No consensus to delete. Black Kite 23:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Leo Blair (senior)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability is, by practice and precedent, not automatically conferred on the parents (or spouses, or children etc) of notable people, and Wikipedia is not obliged to describe their largely unremarkable lives. Suggest redirect to Tony Blair, where any useful information herein is already available.  Dei z  talk 12:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Tony Blair. Leo hasn't done anything noteworthy (being the father of someone notable doesn't make you notable).  TJ   Spyke   17:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. Long-standing consensus is that non-notable relatives of notable people should be mentioned in the notable person's article. Stifle (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable as the father of Tony Blair and a significant influence on his early life. Just the tenuous connection between The Daily Worker and today's Labour Party is noteworthy. Socialism, imagine that! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "...he worked as a copy boy on the Communist Party newspaper The Daily Worker". That = notability? You did read the article? So you're suggesting that anyone who has fathered (or even "influenced") a notable person, or who has worked as the most junior of copywriters on a niche publication deserves their own Wikipedia article? Bizarre, certainly the weakest interpretation of notability guidelines I've come across in a long, long time.  Dei z  talk 04:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you accept that Tony Blair is notable? If he is notable, then the reasons for why he holds his particular set of political viewpoints are notable. The influence of political attitudes within the home during childhood is generally accepted (admittedly probably not on Wikipedia) as being a significant factor in the biographical history of politicians. The fact that Tony was raised by someone who's youthful connection to the Daily Worker (and assumedly an acceptance of its editorial stance, even if they didn't get to write the editorials themselves) changed to the Tory party over time is certainly relevant to the broad picture of Blair. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO has nothing to do with a parent "influencing" their child. If you believe this should be included in WP:BIO, by all means propose an addition in the relevant place. However, as the legislation currently stands, Leo Blair entirely fails the Wikipedia measures of notability. If you don't like WP:BIO, or just flat-out disagree with it, then say so, but please don't continue to make these convoluted, fallacious arguments that completely ignore the very well established measures of notability on Wikipedia. Even if these events in the life of his father were in some way influential in Blair's later years, they can quite properly and adequately be mentioned in the Tony Blair article, a fact to which you seem entirely oblivious. I note from your duplicated "keep" vote below that you may have even less experience with deletion discussions than I previously realized.  Dei z  talk 14:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're such an expert on policy, I won't have to remind you of WP:NOTAVOTE Andy Dingley (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 *  Merge and redirect Would Leo Blair Snr. deserve an article of his own if Tony had died at birth? Nope. SP-KP (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC) (see revised opinion below) SP-KP (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony didn't, therefore your argument is a fallacy. Blair is notable, the causes of Blair are notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How many generations do you propose we go back then? SP-KP (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As far back as is relevant. If he'd been raised by great-grandparents on a diet of Marx & Milton, we'd wish to record that. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we would, but in the article about Tony Blair (or if we find enough material, perhaps in an article entitled "family influences on Tony Blair). SP-KP (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I must agree with Andy, his influence on Tony makes him notable. And it's also interesting how despite that, he was a Tory! Computerjoe 's talk 23:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Urge closing admin to ignore the vague "keep" votes above which make no reference to policy or practice, are unsupported by reliable sources, and rely on vague notions of "influence". Any opinion which starts with "Notable as the father of Tony Blair..." has clearly been made by an editor unfamiliar with the concept of notability, and how it is applied on Wikipedia.  Dei z  talk 23:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "clearly been made by an editor unfamiliar with the concept of notability" I'm also familiar with the concept of an ad hominem. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your response could easily be interpreted as rude, and is quite possibly a breach of WP:NPA and certainly WP:CIVIL. Back onto the point, Leo Blair Sr has news articles about him, which are reliable sources. I realise these probably don't meet the requirements, but there'll be more which a quick Google didn't reveal. Computerjoe 's talk 08:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Where we do have articles on Prime Ministerial ancestors, e.g. Daniel MacMillan it seems to be because of notability in their own right. Conversely, there aren't articles about non-notable Prime Minsterial parents - e.g. those of Ted Heath or John Major. SP-KP (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Other stuff doesn't exist" isn't a policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on, Andy, you can't really think that that was my line of reasoning - re-read what I wrote. I was suggesting that based on which ones we have and which we don't, that editors HAVE actually given some thought to whether a particular prime ministerial ancestor deserves their own article or not, and that they've (without exception?) decided that the notability of the individual themselves is the deciding factor. Your explanation - that this is a coincidence - surely isn't a serious one? SP-KP (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And which policy are you suggesting supports your opinion? Because it is extremely clear in policy and practice that notability is not genetic, which appears to be the sole argument underpinning your position.  Dei z  talk 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Even if Tony Blair died at birth, Leo Blair (senior) is notable in his own right. Maybe not interesting enough to make me sit down and create the article personally, but certainly more than would oppose an AfD. Is the encyclopedia project better or worse for the existence of this article? It's better than our usual fancruft. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I struck this keep because you already "voted" above, but you are of course free to make further comments. the wub "?!"  11:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not sure what "fancruft" is, but reading between the lines (well, the letters then) of it, I agree with Andy. Having searched no end of dictionaries of national biography etc (Oxford, American, etc) for additions to my main project and found about a third of the people in them not allegedly "notable" enough for WP (well they are, but nobody's included them), it's clear that our whole venture is skewed. If this bloke, not to mention each and every idiot who appears on Big Brother, is "notable" enough, then Blair Senior, a law lecturer at Durham and author of the book The Commonwealth Public Service (1958, described by the journal Canadian Public Administration (vol 2 issue 4 p. 255, find it via Wiley Interscience) as "an excellent primer on the Australian Federal Public Service") clearly is. Or are we assuming that people's notability diminishes as time goes on? Oolon (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep That's better - NOW we have a reason to keep the article; thanks Oolon. How about we direct our energies now at turning the article into something which majors on the genuine reasons for Blair Snr's notability. Nothing wrong with mentioning the biological trivia too, though, of course. No harm in a bit of padding. SP-KP (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  11:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Another reliable source specifcally about Leo Blair here .  The sources specifically about him together with published book mentioned above is in my opinion enough to establish notability - I suspect if we looked further we could find more published work by him (although possibly difficult to find given how long ago) and more articles written about him (although again difficult to find due to the number of times he's mentioned purley as Tony's father). Dpmuk (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   —Computerjoe 's talk  11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Notability is not inherited. Mr. Blair has no accomplishments of any note except with respect to having fathered his more famous son. If the guideline means anything, he isn't notable enough for an article. Getting human interest articles on him in the context of Tony Blair's family doesn't come close to establishing independent notability. RayAYang (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Notability is not inherited. Mr. Blair has no accomplishments of any note except with respect to having fathered his more famous son. If the guideline means anything, he isn't notable enough for an article. Getting human interest articles on him in the context of Tony Blair's family doesn't come close to establishing independent notability. RayAYang (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Information: I've now been through (via Nexis UK) just about every English language newspaper pre-1985 (which seemed like a reasonable date), plus Who's Who and various other sources, and can find no mention of Leo Blair in them. So I reluctantly conclude that, if he's notable at all, nobody took much notice of him. Oolon (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2008 (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.