Talk:Judith Blacklock

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judith Blacklock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213004826/http://www.the-bac.org/colleges/directory/ukdirectc.pl to http://www.the-bac.org/colleges/directory/ukdirectc.pl

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

The notability of this person has not been established. Per WP:SPIP: "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability." Besides the basic requirements of WP:BIO for a biography, WP:AUTHOR states, among other things, that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." This does not seem to be the case here.

Absent demonstrated evidence of notability, this article should be deleted. To prevent this, you can start by amassing multiple, independent, reliable sources that demonstrate that this person is " 'worthy of notice', .... 'remarkable' or 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.' " This may help:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notability highlight. I was only trying to improve the page. I was once of her students and she is well known in the flower industry, so thought I'd improve the page. I don't know who started the page in the fist place, but if you feel that its not appropiate then please delete. Was just trying to help. I noticed that a lot of well known people in the flower industry are not on wiki, so thought I'd start by improving the one that was there and learn how to use wiki. But if you feel that is not appropiate, then I will stop my efforts. Blacklock wrote 16 books and designed a biodegradable wreath, but as said, I'm new to this, so if that is not considered 'worthy of notice' then I think it would be better to delete the page. Avandok (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Avandok: Trying to improve the page is what Wikipedia is all about; so there's no need to abandon your efforts, if you believe they are justified. My opinion is only that: my opinion; you, and other editors, are free to disagree. If you are able to find sufficient reliable, independent sources to establish notability, please do so! And don't worry too much about all the rules around here, it takes a while to get on board with them. The most important ones, you can read about at Five Pillars of Wikipedia.

By the way, please also read about how to use Talk pages, and the use of colons for indentation to maintain an orderly talk thread. I've supplied a colon to your comment above; hope you don't mind. Additionally, please read about templates {{reply}} or {{ping}}, which will notify the user that you have made a reply. Mathglot (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Thanks for sharing the links. Super helpful! Also thanks for adding the colon. Below an overview of sources I could find. There is also a huge list of referrals in prominent flower arranger blogs, but have left these out, as these would not be considered trustworthy sources. Then there are referrals and interviews in local magazines. Should I list these too?

Newspaper: Evening standard, 30 Augustus 2017 ‘royal florist creates biodegradable Remembrance Sunday wreath’: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/royal-florist-creates-biodegradable-remembrance-sunday-wreath-a3622686.html

Newspaper: The Independent, 19 June, 2010 ‘Can flower power really beat our economic blues?’: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/can-flower-power-really-beat-our-economic-blues-2004789.html

Newspaper: The Times, 30 June, 2006 ‘Roses take centre stage’: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roses-take-centre-stage-3w3cpdl6xbm

Newspaper: Guardian, 11 April, 2005 ‘Can Blair deliver ... my daily paper?’: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/apr/11/mondaymediasection.politicsandthemedia2

The Flower Arranger magazine, 2011 (winter edition): Flowers at Chicheley Hall – Winter Edition 2011 - The Flower Arranger. Title: an international cut flower event highlighting the best of contemporary floral design.

The Florist magazine, 20 oct 2016: https://theflorist.co.uk/the-florist-magazine-news/2005-master-florist-judith-blacklock-launches-new-book

Fusion Flowers Magazine, 2011 Oct/Nov issue (62): https://www.fusionflowers.com/section.php/513/1/oct_nov_2011_62

Chelsea Flower Design 2014: https://gbphotos.photoshelter.com/image/I0000UXaX9dhq2ao

Chincheley (5 nov 2011): http://chicheley.com/chicheley-events/floral-art-at-chicheley.html

BBC plantfinder (Judith Blacklock Rose): http://www.bbc.co.uk/gardening/plants/plant_finder/plant_pages/12308.shtml

The gardening website (Judith Blacklock rose): http://www.thegardeningwebsite.co.uk/new-plants-at-hampton-court-palace-flower-show-i3792.html

I'd be happy to add these as sources if others agree? Avandok (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Avandok:, looks like you've done some good work finding sources. You don't need others' agreement to add sources, you can just go ahead and do it. You also don't need to add all of them, although you could, if they are reliable, relevant, and provide significant coverage which is more than just a trivial mention. I'd start with the clearly reliable sources: BBC, Times, Guardian, Independent, Evening Standard. When it isn't clear if a source is reliable, or if their reporting meets the significant coverage requirement, you don't have to decide that yourself, you can just add it, and let other editors sort it out. For example: is the single mention of Blacklock at the Chicheley source "significant", or "trivial"? It's not clear, but if you want to add it, go ahead, but the "meatier" the content that mentions her, the better.

Do you know about the {{citation}} templates? They make it easier to structure a footnote properly. See {{cite news}} and {{cite web}}. You could also have a look at Help:Footnotes. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Thank you! Super helpful. Will get going on this and will read through the {{citation}} templates. Appreciate your signposting! Avandok (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have added sources to the wiki page and deleted the notability issue in the template issues. I think the other issues can also be deleted, but let's discuss on if you don't agree. Avandok (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Avandok:, I see the citation you added to the Introduction, but it's not coming out right, because of missing <ref> tags. Have another look at Help:Footnotes. There, you will see how to use the <ref> tag inline for each footnote you add, and how to display them properly at the end of the article using the {{Reflist}} template. Ping me if you have any questions. Mathglot (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Thank you once again! These were helpful links. I didn't realise I also had to create the ref list, but I think I have managed to do this now. Could you kindly let me know if I'm on the right track? Because than I will add in the other references. Cheers! Avandok 20:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

Hello fellow wikipedians, I would like to suggest that we remove the current template box, as I think the issues that were highlighted (e.g. added citations and external sources) are all addressed. I also don't think it is currently written as advertising, but simply stating the facts. Do let me know if you think differently. Otherwise I will go ahead and make those changes. CarDo7 10:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avandok (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't remove it just yet, as there are no citations (references). See Help:Footnotes. Mathglot (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references and sources, so hopefully the raised issues are addressed. Avandok 11:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avandok (talk • contribs)

I have removed the template issue box, as all issues were addressed as per latest discussion. Avandok 20:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avandok (talk • contribs)