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. Fails WP:GNG. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Lawlor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail to see notability here. All coverage is passing mention of name in coverage about other people (not inherited) or simple club profile stuff which, if it were an actual footballer, would be dismissed as standard non-independent coverage not implying notability. ClubOranje^T 10:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 10:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG; if sources can be found to find notability then please let me know and I'll reconsider my !vote. Giant Snowman 14:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep well referenced article, The Telegraph and The Guardian, two of the most well known and well read newspapers in the UK meet and exceed all notability guidelines. WP:GNG is Wikipedia:GNG#General_notability_guideline, states: "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Ikip 07:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Manchester United task force, Talk:Liverpool John Moores University, and Talk:Manchester United F.C. page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip

Comment, Yes, The Telegraph and The Guardian meet notability guidelines (which is why they have an article). This article, however, is about Jim Lawlor, who does not have significant coverage in said reliable sources, and nor do said sources assert he is notable, only that he exists.--ClubOranje^T 10:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know this line of debate, I was about to write what was next (significant coverage) yesterday. It always goes something like this: no reliable sources >> reliable sources argument debunked >> significant coverage >> significant coverage argument debunked >> (fill in the next argument) I could care less about Soccer, and so I won't travel this well warn argument path today, maybe others care too? Would you support a merge/redirect to Manchester United F.C. instead Club Oranje? Thanks. Ikip 15:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has reliable references and I found a couple more as well [1] [2] Eldumpo (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the news coverage found. Dream Focus 11:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources found only give Lawlor a name-check and fail WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP. No significant coverage about Lawlor himself, but about Man Utd's transfer targets. --Jimbo^[online] 15:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the sources found are actually about this man, they just mention him in passing (generally in a signle sentence). That is not enough to pass WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant, non-trivial coverage in any (never mind reliable) sources. No real assertion of notability to meet WP:GNG. -- Big Dom 20:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the only significant contributor to the article under WP:CSD#G7. Others have added categories and templates, but the only major content was added by me. Furthermore, I agree that the sources are insufficient to warrant an article. – Pee Jay 08:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.