Deletion of Lionel Blackman (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:GNG)