Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Lawlor

Tyler Lawlor

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Tyler Lawlor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a sports figure, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for sportspeople. To be fair, at the time this was first created, Wikipedia had a consensus that simple presence at the Olympics was an automatic inclusion lock regardless of medal placement or sourcing issues -- but that's long since been deprecated, and a non-medalist now has to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability.
But a WP:BEFORE search turned up very little that could be used to salvage the article: apart from Olympic results reporting itself, I largely just get glancing namechecks of his existence and local high-school-athlete coverage rather than coverage that's substantively about him in any notability-building sense. I've further been completely unable to verify this article's claim that he was born in Sudbury — even the database entry present here as the article's sole source fails to claim that, and his local high-school-athlete coverage is found in Ottawa, not Sudbury. (And yes, I get that it's possible for people to be born in one place and then move to another, but we still need to be able to verify claims about a person's birthplace.)
Finishing ninth in an Olympic event just isn't "inherently" notable enough anymore to exempt him from ever having to have more reliable source coverage than I've been able to find. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ottawa Citizen is the local hometown coverage I mentioned in my nomination statement, the St. Cat's Standard is just a short blurb that nominally verifies a fact but is not long enough to imbue said fact with any notability points, and the Harbour City Star hit is literally just an advertorial to sell aquatic sport clothing that Tyler Lawlor is modelling, not an article about Tyler Lawlor doing anything noteworthy. So the Ottawa Citizen is still all we've actually got for GNG-worthy coverage, and that's still "local guy" coverage in his hometown newspaper (i.e. not enough if it's all he's got). Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ottawa Citizen is one of the largest newspapers in Canada, and as such should be given the full weight of a normal significant source (esp. considering that locality of coverage is irrelevant). The Harbour City Star piece: yes, it is about a business of Lawlor's, but it seems to be written by a valid journalist by a valid company (Southam Newspapers, owned by Postmedia Network) – it seems to have enough details on him IMO to be categorized as covering him "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" – as far as I'm aware a source does not need to cover someone for them doing something one subjectively things is "noteworthy" to be considered significant. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody dismissed the Ottawa Citizen on size grounds, but all newspapers can still cover local residents in local-interest contexts that don't necessarily clinch nationalized or internationalized notability in and of themselves for a person who has virtually nothing wider than just their hometown. For instance, a restaurant owner in Byward Market is not going to clear GNG just because a restaurant critic reviewed his restaurant in the Citizen, a local artist winning a local arts award from the SAW Gallery isn't going to clear NARTIST standards on that basis alone, and on and so forth. Even The New York Times features coverage of local people in local-interest contexts that don't establish permanent national or international notability all by themselves just because their local coverage came from The New York Times instead of the Palookaville Herald, because GNG does take into account the context of what the person is getting covered for and not just the raw number of hits that exist. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still only one source, I don't see quite enough for GNG or any sport notability as being met. I don't think we have notability, still a !delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b and @Bearcat, there were actually four newspaper sources provided, not just one. Remember that a person does not need to be the sole subject (or even a primary subject) of a work for it to satisfy WP:GNG. I also disagree that "local" coverage is any less legitimate than national coverage in these papers, because their audience is the same, i.e. all Times subscribers will read it even if the subject is a New Yorker. For your specific examples (Byward Market restaurant owner, SAW Gallery award winner) – do you have specific examples of these types of subjects having articles deleted by community consensus? --Habst (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of the geographic range of a newspaper's readership, it's a question of the context in which the coverage is being given. There have been literally thousands of articles taken to AFD and deleted on the grounds that having a couple of hits of local coverage was not in and of itself enough to overcome the person's lack of a nationalized or internationalized notability claim — high school athletes (e.g. Marquis Fleming), local artists (Laura BenAmots), mayors (Cathy Heron) or municipal councillors (Corky Boozé) or unelected candidates for office (Tiffany Ford), people whose sole claim of notability was winning a minor award of exclusively local significance (Bob Frantz), restaurateurs (Emilio Vitolo) and on and so forth.
Again, I didn't say that local coverage is entirely inadmissible for use — but having a couple of hits of local coverage isn't enough all by itself to overcome not passing WP:NSPORT. And I already addressed above why the St. Catharines Standard (a short blurb) and Harbour City Star (a fashion advertorial in which he's present as a model and not as the subject of discussion) aren't helping. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat, thanks, I am interested in seeing at least one of the thousands of examples. Of the ones you linked,
Based on this, it seems like it is very rare, if it has ever happened, that an article with as much coverage provided here has ever been deleted. I have an open mind, but I haven't been able to find any examples. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the number of links that are or aren't listed in the AFD discussion that matters, it's the number of sources that were or weren't present in the article that matters. They're all articles that cited a handful of local-interest coverage, which was deemed not sufficient in and of itself to exempt them from having to clear the defined SNGs for their occupations just because the articles had a bit of local-interest coverage in them. The rules for notability of people always work the same way no matter what occupation they were in: either they have an "inherent" notability claim that meets a defined notability criterion for their occupation, or they have a depth and range and volume of coverage that marks them out as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm among all the other people in the same occupation who have failed to meet the "inherent" notability criteria. Local politicians do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; local restaurateurs do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; athletes who haven't otherwise passed NSPORTS do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; and that always works the same way across all occupations. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat, I understand the distinction you are making, but it is one without a difference with respect to this discussion, because if we don't have the links to the actual sources, then we can't say that those articles were more well-sourced than this one.
> Local politicians do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; local restaurateurs do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; athletes who haven't otherwise passed NSPORTS do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage
^ The above is what I'm looking for even one example of. All of the above AfDs linked have less available sources than this article, regardless of profession, so I don't think they are analogous. Until I find any evidence otherwise, I would have to disagree with the quoted text. --Habst (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per BeanieFan11. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per provided sources establishing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. See my reply above to address nominator concerns. --Habst (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources read like local people doing local things of [[WP:ROTM]. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tyler_Lawlor&oldid=1222322581"