Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionel Blackman (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   keep. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Lionel Blackman
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article was the subject of a recent AfD which was closed as No consensus. I have no procedural problem with the close which was within the discretion of the closer; however, having looked at the article I felt that the subject did not meet our inclusion criteria, that the quality of the referencing was poor (Wikipedia being used twice), that the claims made were not supported by the sources (such as the statement "Lionel Blackman is a leading UK human rights lawyer", which 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 following the guidance of WP:POLITICIAN, the article should "redirect to an appropriate page covering the election". I did this, and explained my actions on Talk:Lionel_Blackman. However, my actions have been challenged, so it seems appropriate to bring it back to the community for a wider consensus.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Either delete or redirect to Esher and Walton (UK Parliament constituency).  SilkTork  *YES! 15:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I'm rather losing the will to live at Wikipedia. That's not completely true, I'll stick with the articles that are of core interest for me, but there's no way I'm going to waste any more time and energy trying to contribute to articles of more general interest that are going to be flushed away. And nor am I going to waste five minutes more time going over all the old discussions of barely a month ago. I've deleted Lionel Blackman from my watchlist not because I don't think he justifies an article but because I'm not going to get tangled up in this sort of fatuousness again. Thanks to Aarghdevaark for not letting the argument go by default. Nevertheless, I'm afraid I disagree with what's just been said. I don't accept that barging ahead and disposing of the article a month after no consensus should be politely considered good faith. There are a lot more things needing attention at Wikipedia than a second potshot at the Lionel Blackman article and contempt for consultation. Opbeith (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver  seren C 18:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have reformatted the references and removed the links to other Wikipedia articles. It seems to me that this man is exceptionally notable. Do I need to go find more sources? I'm sure I could do it. Silver  seren C 18:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm ignorant of British politics, but it seems he's not quite notable under WP:POLITICIAN items 1 and 2, having only sat on a ward assembly, but item 3 seems to fit due to other activities.  I'm also ignorant of British Law, but it seems he is somewhat notable in that context as well. Jisakujien (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but with the observation that the nominator exercised good judgment and good faith in bringing this nomination here, because I believe the decision is a very close one. I was curious as to whether this individual met our notability standards and decided to thoroughly investigate all the references provided; I also allowed myself to speculate on what might constitute notability with respect to a lawyer, because I believe it's clear that the subject doesn't qualify under WP:POLITICIAN or the general notability guideline.  I readily agree with the nominator that the quality of the referencing was poor, and that some of the claims were not supported by the sources.  Many of the references were ones that would simply allow the reader to determine the existence of a fact but not how it contributed to notability, and the context of the references was in some cases wrenched and twisted to suggest that there was more notability attached than was actually the case; this is why I approached their totality with a jaundiced eye.  I was easily able to discount self-generated references such as (before revisions) nos. 1 and 2; these confirm that Mr. Blackman exists and is a lawyer.  I discounted the material about Mr. Blackman's charitable advocacy efforts; in a system that doesn't allow lawyers to advertise in a traditional sense, this is a well-known form of advertising and doesn't really seem applicable unless it's being suggested that Mr. Blackman is notable primarily for his charitable works, which I don't think is the case.  I don't think that the notability of a lawyer is inherited from his cases (unless the case is so notable as to invoke the general notability guidelines, like O.J. Simpson); the citations that refer to specific cases (such as the prosecution for possession of a rifle) merely attach notability to that case and not to the lawyer who is professionally engaged to try it.  There were really only two references that I considered lent notability to the subject, nos. 8 and 10, where the lawyer was quoted, seemingly with approval, by his peers in what might be considered a professional journal.  In the abstract, I considered that notability does attach to a lawyer in the form of recognition by his peers, notably by the Q.C. designation (in the British system) which Mr. Blackman has not attained, but also in the form of being asked to teach students, and it's that area that tipped the balance for me.  The citations for Mr. Blackman's pedagogy are so confused that it almost seemed as if they were spurious, but I tracked down evidence sufficient to convince me that he is the equivalent (in my legal system) of a guest lecturer in a law school, a position which in my experience is not casually offered.  I'm not suggesting that Mr. Blackman is "exceptionally notable", an assertion with which I disagree, but I do think that the sum total of his efforts is sufficient to bring him within the notability guidelines. I would suggest that the article, and the references, need a major overhaul by an impartial third party willing to prune where required. Accounting4Taste: talk 21:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The result of the first AfD was 'no consensus', which effectively meant no change, i.e. keep. I didn't take part in that discussion which is why I've perhaps got the energy to discuss this here. I say that because I know at least one (User:Opbeith) of the people who supported keeping the article last time gave up trying to stop it being redirected to Esher and Walton (UK Parliament constituency) by  SilkTork , i.e. being deleted despite the first AfD decision. I think if a decision has been made in good faith it should be adhered to - otherwise why bother with these discussions at all? If we don't keep to decisions then it is not rational discussion but persistence which will determine Wiki's content. See discussion at Talk:Lionel Blackman. N.B. it is  SilkTork  again who has nominated this page for deletion, despite, and I quote from their introduction above, this page having a 'recent AfD which was closed as No consensus'. My concern is not with the content of the page (although I'm glad to see the consensus seems to be to keep), but with users ignoring community decisions if they think their argument is good enough Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think "no consensus" means "no consensus" -- although it defaults to keep.  I disagree with the idea that User:SilkTork "ignored" a community decision; there was no decision because there was no consensus.  If your intent is to suggest that the nominator has broken a rule of some kind by renominating an article upon which there was no consensus, there are certainly places to which you can take that assertion; until then, you may find it more productive to assume good faith.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am criticizing User:SilkTork for deleting this article after the result of the first AfD - as you say - defaulted to keep. It was only after I reverted his deletion that he brought this to a 2nd AfD. He probably did it in good faith as I think he thinks he is right, but IMHO doing something in good faith is not an excuse for ignoring other people's opinions. I don't really want to continue this as it is not productive. Aarghdvaark (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Um...okay? I feel like you should be having this opinion only if this AfD was leaning toward delete, but it's not. From the current standpoint, it's going to be unanimously kept, so I must admit that I am rather perplexed where this came from. I guess...i'm sorry you feel that way about the project. I'm sure it won't help, but you can go read my feelings on the project. I might not know you, but i'm sad to see you go. We need all the editors we can get. Silver  seren C 23:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that blast was me expressing annoyance at having used up a lot of time and energy the last time around, when I was already getting fed up with the regular ditching of reasonably useful if not critically important articles. It's simply a deterrent to further effort.  What is the point of you and all these other people wasting their time here on this discussion?  I'm not going to be tempted to get into a discussion about whether human rights work by a specialist human rights lawyer as part of a team of prominent human rights lawyers commissioned by organisations in the field concerned about grave human rights abuses should be challengeable as self-promotion without the benefit even of in dubio pro reo.  I'd decided not to waste time being concerned even about the mighty Kevin's grim reaper campaigns and then this one popped back out to sabotage my resolution not to worry any more.  It's not just this discussion, Silver seren, it's the straws accumulating between the camel's humps.  Opbeith (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have just been through the article to clean it up and update cites. However, I am still struggling to see where Lionel Blackman meets our notability criteria. He was a local councillor - but local councillors are not notable by our guidelines. He is a solicitor who has taken part in two cases which have been mentioned by sources - but it is the cases that are notable, not the lawyer - and association does not confer notability. His human rights work appears minimal - he has taken part with others in a couple of visits, and endorsed a couple of non-notable letters. It looks like he is a reasonably successful and busy solicitor with some interest in where solicitors can get involved in human rights. His main claim to fame appears to be co-founding the Solicitors' International Human Rights Group - a non-notable possibly commercial organisation (it's not listed as a charity) aimed at giving solicitors information about how to deal with human rights issues. Hmmm. Be nice if someone could do some more research and dig up something more notable about this person.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for updating the main page and putting in the references. I just put back in the name of the man sentenced for handing in a shotgun to the police, seemed to make more sense Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * REdirect to Constituency -- This is the standard solution for Prospective Parliamentary Candidates. If he wins he will be notiable, but not until then.  For the avoidance of doubt, being a borough councillor is NN.  Solicitors' International Human Rights Group is a probably a pressure group (and not commercial), but classifed as "political" and hecne not eligible to be a charity.  Until we have an articel on it, we should assume it is NN, thus not conferring notability on its officers.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy close The last AFD closed on 27 February 2010. If you don't get the results you want, you don't start another AFD a month later.   D r e a m Focus  08:13, 1 April 2010 (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.