Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euan Blair (3rd 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Euan Blair[edit]

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

This article was approved for deletion in October 2009; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euan Blair (2nd nomination).

The article has subsequently been restored, without any substantive improvement; it remains the same farrago of trivia it was in the first place. The arguments that justified deletion in October 2009 continue to hold good; anything of merit should, as previously noted, properly be recorded in the articles for Tony Blair or Cherie Blair.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (8th nomination). Incidentally, isn't there a CSD for recreations of deleted content? Heather (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly Speedy but I have no idea how similar this page is to the previous page. Anyway: WP:NOTINHERITED and Euan really is not notable except as the son of the former British Prime minister—a fact clearly borne out by the references e.g. "Blairs watch eldest son graduate", "Blair's son is to be deputy head boy", "What's Euan got that other boys haven't? Ask Daddy", "Blair's son Euan leaves hospital", "Inside Cherie's Bristol flats", "Ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair received into Catholic Church" etc, etc. Can the page be Create-Protected after deletion (if the consensus is to delete that is)? --Jubilee ♫clipman 00:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My argument in the previous AfD still applies: 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) 11:47, 15 May 2010 (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.