Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Lawlor

Tyler Lawlor

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Besides raising chickens in his backyard [1] -and it might not even be this person- nothing for notability. Aylmer is near Ottawa. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. @Oaktree b and Bearcat: Passes GNG, see coverage at newspapers.com: Ottawa Citizen feature (p2), more Ottawa Citizen, Harbor City Star, and The Standard. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Nobody dismissed the Ottawa Citizen on size grounds, but the Ottawa Citizen is still a paper that can cover local residents in local-interest contexts that don't necessarily clinch notability in and of themselves for a person who has nothing wider. 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 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. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)