Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Lemco


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Tyler Lemco

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. WP:BLP, based mainly on primary sources, such as YouTube videos and content where he's the bylined author, of a writer and internet personality. While there is a bit of reliable source coverage sprinkled in among all the junk, all of the legitimate sourcing covers him exclusively in the context of the single non-notable event of posting "campaign" signs in last year's Canadian federal election which read "not running for anything, I just wanted a sign" — which means the media coverage here just makes him a WP:BLP1E. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a person becomes entitled to have an article just because he exists — it's an encyclopedia, on which a person must be the subject (not the author) of media coverage which verifies one or more specific achievements that quantifiably pass a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete too many primary sources to show that he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, most of the sources are primary or links to own youtube videos. The best secondary sources are a couple of human interest stories (which look like local coverage). There is nothing else which proves that the subject is notable and notability cannot be inherited from a youtube show. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2017 (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.