Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lawlor


 * 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. Tone 10:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

George Lawlor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable local politician. The subject does not meet the notability criteria for politicians (WP:NPOL), in that local councillors in Ireland do not meet the expectations of an international or national office. The subject also doesn't meet the general notability criteria for people (WP:SIGCOV/WP:NBIO), in that the only non-trivial coverage is the very recent (and minimal) coverage of the subject's candidacy in a by-election. Otherwise, for example, a search for the subject in the main newspapers of record in Ireland (Irish Times and Irish Independent) returns only one or two pieces like this one which does not meet the expectations of SIGCOV. Article was created because the subject is seeking national office. But, standing in a by-election doesn't contribute to WP:NPOL. Being a candidate for national office is some distance from holding a national office. (The de-PROD argument "articles on other local politicians exist" is not relevant. Given WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE guidelines. Subject's are notable on their own merits. Not by association with other subjects.) Guliolopez (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's evident there's significantly more than 'trivial coverage' if you look online. There's over 200 results in one of the searches linked. Lawlor has been notable before by-election coverages unlike the two other articles you've nominated for AfD, and therefore this shouldn't be here. Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hiya. Thanks so much for the note. To confirm, as part of a WP:BEFORE exercise (and as per the linked search above), I did of course look online before opening this AfD. While, granted, Lawlor is perhaps "more notable" than the other two subjects I'd recently opened threads upon, I don't necessarily agree that the 200 results indicate that the threshold of SIGCOV is met. Many of the results returned by that query are, for example, "false matches" or trivial mentions (events that the subject attended locally and the like, rather than articles in which the subject is the primary topic). There are, granted, a number of local news stories, where the subject is a principle subject, but these are in the regional/local outlets of the Independent News & Media stable. Rather than the national publications. And many are relatively recent rather than sustained over time. In any event, while I'm absolutely delighted to hear other editors' opinions as part of an articles for discussion thread (that obviously being the point of opening the discussion thread), I don't agree that there shouldn't be one. That being said, obviously, if there's a clear consensus otherwise, I'll be delighted to close this thread myself. If WP:SNOW applies.) Thanks again! Guliolopez (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you very much for the eloquent response, I could not have asked for a nicer one. I would believe that the amount of coverage (insignificant attendance records ignored) would be considered significant enough really. The aforementioned story about the financial transaction between him and another politician is one of these, and while I understand totally that a lot of the articles in the search are insignificant, there are a lot more within the search. Thanks again! Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This article was created during his by-election campaign. I'm not sure beyond that what makes him notable. The mere fact of him being referenced in the cited articles is not sufficient. Should every borough and municipal district mayor get an article? Everyone mentioned in local newspapers, if part of coverage of national campaigns? I just deleted a lot of inline references, on the WP:OVERCITE principle. There seemed to be an element of WP:MASK given the number of them, some repeated, for a local politician. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. County councillor is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over NPOL #2 just because the person exists, and his candidacy in a Dail by-election is not grounds for a Wikipedia article either — he would have to win the by-election to collect notability from the by-election. But the referencing here is a mix of primary and unreliable sources (e.g. profiles on the self-published and directly affiliated websites of the county council and his political party, podcasts, blogs) that are not support for notability at all; purely routine local coverage of the type that every local councillor everywhere is simply expected to get in the local media, which is not enough to make him a special case of greater notability than most other county councillors; and glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that are not fundamentally about him. Obviously this will be recreatable after election day if he wins the national by-election, since his basis for notability will have changed, but this is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a local councillor or an as yet unelected by-election candidate already notable enough for an article today. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Bearcat and Iveagh Gardens. Spleodrach (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.