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. Scott Mac (Doc) 18:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lawton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Nomination created on behalf of 67.193.129.239 (talk · contribs). The user's rationale should be given shortly. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The nominator's concerns at WT:AFD were "Similar non-notable biography was deleted in 2006". I withhold !voting delete or keep until a more thorough indication of why this article should be deleted is asserted by the nominator. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article violates WP:NTEMP. Being a blogger with mentions in a couple of news stories about specific incedental events does not provide enough notability to warrant an article. Also doesn't meet WP:BIO. Not a depth of coverage, and coverage that exists comes only from a local newspaper and a campus newspaper. Also, subject clearly does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, WP:AUTHOR or WP:ENT. Won one category in a blogging award that itself did not receive any covereage and I don't believe that the award org is notable itself. Can't find any coverage in Google News for the last 4 years besides the two sources noted. 67.193.129.239 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would defend the presence of this article based on Mr. Lawton's status as a columnist for the Examiner and panelist on the Michael Coren Show. I did a Google-search on the websites of both the Examiner and the Michael Coren Show and there is no question that Lawton has appeared in both of those sources. With a position writing for an international news publication and being a panelist on a National television program, what more is needed for notoriety? Jamie.wallace123 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to their website, there more than 24,000 'Examiners' who write for Examiner.com. Lawton is a Toronto Policy Examiner, and if I lived in Toronto I could be one too, judging by the active recruiting the site is doing in the Canadian market. Hardly meets the notability requirements for a columnist. As for being a regular panelist on the Michael Coren show, not only would that not be enough for notability, but it's not even true. A quick look at the Google cache for Michael Coren's website shows the entry for Jan. 13, 2010 as having "debut guest Andrew Lawton." Maybe he'll become a regular panelist, but until then refer you to WP:CRYSTAL. My original opinion stands. --67.193.129.239 (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Personally, I don't see how a website paying a large number of people to write takes away from the notability of those people. Perhaps the Wikipedia guidelines themselves need to be updated? Andrew has a strong web presence and a history of controversy. I have been reading his work for a few years and only found his old blog because of the reputation that preceded him. He's most certainly not an unknown. 129.100.191.74 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC) — 129.100.191.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. I'm inclined to agree. I'm from London, Ontario as well...and Andrew is definitely a public figure on a local level, and a celebrity within a certain (large) niche on a national level. Truthfully, there's a lot more he's done that's not in this article (such as organizing a National tour for Ann Coulter, but he still warrants an article. 206.53.157.54 (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you have any reliable sources to back up your comments? If so, those sources would meet the general notability guideline, but without sources nothing can be done, really. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The topic is covered in detail in reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete could not find significant coverage by reliable sources. University paper not enough. Coverage by London Free Press (not including the 404 relating to a small rally) is about a child porn scandal, not Andrew Lawton, which makes it a case of WP:BLP1E at most.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Could not find coverage using the Tri-State (ND,MN,SD) library book/periodical system. Can not find any sources that meet the WP:RS guidelines nor the WP:GNG guidelines. Where are the national news articles? Where is the non-local coverage by a reputable, peer-edited sources on this person? The hero worship is getting a bit thick on Wikipedia lately. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 04:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Writing for Examiner.com is not notable. Editorial oversight or fact checking is virtually non-existent. It is little more than an online equal of a vanity press. Nothing else I see makes him notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources are not independent and/or are not directly about the subject; looks promotional; has no mainspace incoming links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I just deleted refs which were no longer valid. The strictly right link is from his own blog, the UWO pieces either don't mention him at all or are a "letter to the editor". The winner of religion/philosophy seemed incorrect -- when I followed the link given his blog didn't appear in the list. The child pornography thing seems to be that he found porn on an unmaintained university bulletin board that was open to the public (surprise, surprise). So he won one blog award for his blog and found porn on an old university website. Perhaps in a few years he'll be notable. Banaticus (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was another blog of mine that won the Religion/Philosophy award. And please delete this page...I have no idea who wrote it, and I really don't want it here. It was written without my consent, I expect it removed ASAP. andrew.lawton (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (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.