Kommunal.az

The content is highly contentious - whilst something certainly happened in May, and has been hushed up, this account comes from a single source not known for his reliability. I'd think it's also potentially libellous and certainly likely to cause distress. -- Gregg 03:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Well, we should have an article on her. We should also have a neutral account of whatever happened in May, including speculation as to what it is. I have no idea if it is what the article says it is, but there should be some mention of it, assuming it's a notable fact about her, as it seems to be. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:40, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Why should we have an article on an a sixteen year-old school girl? She's not a public figure, she hasn't done anything notable. Even if this story does turn out to be true, it could (and IMO should) then be covered by a few lines on Tony Blair. -- Gregg 11:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I don't think we should be detailing private lives except where they become a prominent public story. Indulging in gossip would be wrong. This is not a public story so I vote to delete. Timrollpickering 07:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • From what's in the page it seems to be a public story, or at least a public item of speculation, and should be reported as such. People are talking about it; how is it not a public story? Honestly confused, not trying to pick a fight. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 08:35, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • No, we should not cover it. WP doesn't do rumours, it does verifiable, significant material, and the supposed info is neither. --Jerzy(t) 09:27, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
      • I disagree, I say we delete it. It's not whether or not it's verifiable. It's whether or not it's good for society for a person who has not chosen to live in the public sphere to have their life documented. I love WikiPedia but I am deeply ashamed of this article. Brian Attard
• Del Unverifiable, non-notable, and she is adequately covered in the article on the only newsworthy family-member's article. --Jerzy(t) 09:27, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
• Delete. Verifiability is the requirement, and anything that cannot be verified should not be included. The remainder is not significant enough for an article. Anything relating to whether or not Blair considered retirement should be in the article on Tony Blair. Average Earthman 11:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable in her won right, merge speculaton about suicide bid with Tony Blair if verified as reported by a credible source. - TB 11:51, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Jerzy is right: verification is impossible, and that makes this a deletion candidate. Geogre 13:54, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable in her own right. I have tried to check the story and it doesn't stand up: on May 13, 2004, Tony Blair was in Coventry and on May 14 he went to Newcastle-upon-Tyne as part of the local and European election campaign. There are no reports that he cancelled engagements and returned to London, which would have happened if the story had any basis in fact. Dbiv 14:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable kid, Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer. — Gwalla | Talk 17:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Adequately covered at Tony Blair#Private_life. Controversy about Blair's other children does appear in that section, but those at least are incidents that might in some way relate to politics, and this story about his daughter, true or not, really isn't. —Triskaideka 18:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Undecided - There is not mention at Tony Blair#Private_life about the May incident. Are we voting to delete because the suicide attept is illegal to report in U.K.? (I assume that is why the content was removed from the article.) The information is notable since it shows the pressures on his family related to the Iraq war. Perhaps it can be restored after she turns 18? - Tεxτurε 19:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Query: What about verification? Articles that are unverifiable cannot stay. Since this episode, if it happened, cannot be confirmed, we're not much of an encyclopedia if we report it. Geogre 00:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • We have many unsupported conspiracy theories. Do they go away as well as unverifiable? We're not much of an encyclopedia if we ignore reports in multiple media sites. - Tεxτurε 20:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• If the article had been the rant it was at first, I would have voted for speedy deletion. Now I vote for expand or delete Aecis 23:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable and a non-notable person in her own right. --G Rutter 20:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Please Delete. If it's not true, then it's not true. If it is true... then it's no one's business. Her father ran for office, not her. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. func(talk) 02:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. So long as she's listed in her father's article, there's no reason to have this as she's never done anything worth noting. PedanticallySpeaking 18:15, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Whether a person has done something "worth noting" is subjective. I'm reasonably certain that there are Wikipedia entries for children of other prominent historical figures. Adraeus 03:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - deleting this would be like bowing to the Chinese censorship of Wikipedia. If article is deleted, the information should be inserted into the Tony Blair article. Kathryn Blair's suicide attempt is clearly related to the medias interest in Melvyn Braggs recent pronouncements about Blair--Xed 20:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Um... what you've said might make sense, if the people who voted delete did so out of concern for British censorship rules... which they didn't, and if my google search for: "Melvyn Braggs" Blair had turned up more than 2 unrelated hits. Who is Melvyn Braggs, and why is a guy that the media is interested in have so few hits? func(talk) 21:17, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Melvyn Bragg news links
      • Whoops... please forgive an unlearned U.S. dude. I still don't like this. I remember the crap that Rush Limbaugh used to insinuate about the Clinton's daughter. Is this seriously notable??? func(talk) 00:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep; re-work to avoid libel, though. James F. (talk) 22:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tony Blair - not notable on her own. Andris 06:33, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. --Viriditas 11:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable (or at least not enough for her own article). Why are we talking about her anyway? What good is this going to do any of us? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. It's a completely unverified theory, but that it gained some credibility temporarily is worth noting. Johnleemk | Talk 15:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep/Redirect Do something (there is a problem with the current situation). Not delete. Again with the US-centricism, some major US politician's kids (not just President) would not be deleted. zoney ♣ talk 15:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, if Euan Blair and Bushs kids have articles, why not she? Especially when one considers her suicide attempt almost caused the resignation of one of the most powerful men in the world. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 15:52, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, or Merge and Redirect. My delete vote was predicated by my concern that the article was going to contribute to a tabloid-like smear campaign against a child who just happens to have a famous father, but if the consensus is that this is truly notable in a political sense, and if we are getting to the point where the charge of US-centrism is being bandied about, then I guess it's a keeper. func(talk) 16:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - mention daughter on Tony Blair's page. Chuck 19:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment - whatever happens to Kathryn Blair's article, it would be only fair and consistent to equally treat Leo Blair's article. But... merge and redirect to Tony Blair's page. --Edcolins 21:16, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable in herself. It's of dubious legality to report the private issues of a child in the UK. Also, it's irrelevant who her father is or its effect on him or people's opinion of him. Sc147 22:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep She's notable because she's Blair's daughter, she's notable because her attempted suicide highlights some of the complexities in the relationship between the government and the British press, and she's notable because she nearly caused Blair to step down. Acegikmo1 23:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• - SimonP 16:29, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion