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 00:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euan Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Euan Blair is not notable in his own right. His parents are notable, and he may therefore merit a passing reference on their respective articles, but being the child of a notable person is not a ground for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Once this young man has achieved distinction in his own right, he may claim a place in Wikipedia, but not before. The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial merge to Tony Blair. Delete useless trivia. Wikipedia is not the Daily Mirror. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Dubious as a lot of the media coverage of him is, a lot of it is media coverage specifically about him. He may only have attracted coverage due to his father, but the amount and detail of the coverage suggests there's enough verifiable information about him to produce an article, and that he is notable - he has received, to quote exactly, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. He really was all over the newspapers here back in 2000 and 2001, much to my irritation. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we apply WP:N with common-sense. Sure there has been much media coverage but nothing yet about any significant achievement or notable contribution. All we have is a collection of trivia. Whatever the result of this AfD I should be most surprised if that is the end of the matter; this has all the hallmarks of one that will run and run ... TerriersFan (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —~ mazca ^{t | c} 01:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TerriersFan. Fails WP:BIO. Mention in the parent's article is sufficient for offspring of political leaders, until they accomplish some thing on their own. The present article says he was born, had a few misadventures, had his appendix out, went to school, had a few internships and lightweight jobs. Any press coverage was because of his parentage. Edison2 (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Why, therefore, should there not be an article about him? JulesH (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - because the coverage is about trivial events and he hasn't achieved anything notable. TerriersFan (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "plenty of coverage" is not enough in its own right. Consider the following Wikipedia principles: a) substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability; significant coverage is more than trivial; and b) Wikipedia is not a collector of indiscrimate information. The current article is a farrago of trivia precisely because there is nothing of substance to say. The compromise is to provide a redirect to the Tony Blair page where he can receive a passing mention to the limited extent appropriate and relevant. The Sage of Stamford (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Tony Blair: notability cannot be inherited. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - frequently covered in British media in his own right.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - but why is he covered in the media? Because he is the son of Blair. The matters reported would not merit a passing comment without the parental connection. De minimis non curat Wikipedia (to coin a phrase). The Sage of Stamford (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —MacRusgail (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and REdirect to Tony Blair. Euan Blair has done nothing notable to date. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of media discussion about him specifically. Euan is not being listed because of his father but because of the significant coverage that he has attracted. JASpencer (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - but the coverage is about trivia; see TerriersFan above. Ask yourself the question: Would these things get covered in the media if the subject were not the son of Blair? Transparently not; in a person without connections they would not command any comment. Wikipedia should exercise a higher degree of judgement than that expected of tabloid journalists with columnn inches to fill.The Sage of Stamford (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.