Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Dubeau


 * 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 keep. The Keeps participants aren't exactly the most forceful out there, but I find their arguments convincing nonetheless. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 21:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Dan Dubeau

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The author's argument is that being the acting commissioner of the RCMP is an automatic notability pass. There is no WP:PAG that supports that, and the press coverage and other sourcing on this guy is meager at best. Most of the sources that mention him speak of him in connection to the controversy of his predecessor leaving office. Does not meet WP:NPOL (not even sure that applies, as this is supposedly the Canadian equivalent of a civil service job), does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC. John from Idegon (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - As RoySmith said here, "One could make a reasonable argument that since we don't have a WP:NRCMP guideline, WP:MILPERSON might be a reasonable stand-in, in which case, "Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces" would apply here. Certainly, if we've got all the people in Category:American police chiefs, the deputy commissioner of the RCMP should qualify". I also believe that being Acting Commissioner should automatically make Dubeau as notable as Zachary Taylor Wood and Beverley Busson, both of whom held the position in the same effect. Althought Busson is listed on the RCMP site, Wood is not, and yet both have been granted their own articles, which I believe makes for a valid WP:Other stuff exists argument. Per these, I beleive the article should be kept. Fhsig13 (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * One man's opinion is not a guideline, and you misquoted him. He is welcome to argue that position here if he likes. However, you have violated yet another policy by pinging him here. You are not allowed to WP:CANVAS. The simple fact is, police chiefs are seldom notable, and the ones that are usually are because they have either held an elected office that meets WP:NPOL or have held a major administrative police post (think chief of NYPD) for a long period. Keep in mind, this guy was never the head of the RCMP, he was the acting head.  That is not a subtle difference. Also, if you had taken the time to read the guidelines for contributing to an AfD discussion, you'd see that WP:OSE is seldom a persuasive argument. John from Idegon (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That said, WP:OSE may be valid in this case, as I've stated above. Secondly, I apologize for apparently violating WP:CANVAS, however I was not aware that was in violation, nor was it my intent. Lastly, I don't beleive that I misquoted anyone, however my apologies if in some way I did. Fhsig13 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, even if being the Acting Commissioner isn't enough to pass WP:NPOL, he has held post as Chief Human Resources Officer since 2011, which should hold some standing here in terms of a "Major Administrative Position". Fhsig13 (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said elsewhere, the argument I made at DRV, cited above, was a relatively weak argument, but it doesn't take much to overturn a WP:A7. The bar is higher at AfD.  I have not studied this enough to have formed an opinion I wish to express here, so I'm neutral in this AfD discussion.  As for canvassing, that's kind of moot; I found this on my own.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - It doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO and may barely pass WP:BASIC, just enough to avoid a speedy deletion. Most sources focus on the previous commissioner and the controversies this person was involved with. There's only one primary source in the article right now; it'd have to be completely re-written, and then - it'd be an article focused entirely on the controversies. However, WP:BLP requires high-quality sources on sensitive topics, so... No, cannot be rescued at the moment. byteflush Talk 00:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it couldn't pass WP:ANYBIO on the first criterion? Being named the head of a national police force, even temporarily, IS a significant honor and was broadcast on Canadian news stations for several days following Comm. Paulson's retirement, making it well-known, in my opinion. Fhsig13 (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, in my opinion, it's more of a duty; or a post. While it probably is an honor to serve as a head of RCMP, the word honor, from the context of WP:ANYBIO applies to something else. byteflush Talk 00:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Might I inquire as to what you beleive it applies to, if not to such promotions? (I ask out of pure curiosity) Fhsig13 (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. =) From my PoV, it's a British CBE or higher honor, though I might be wrong on that one. Anyway, I don't think a personal feeling of being honored qualifies there. byteflush Talk 01:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I can't say for sure what the definition of honor is in this case either, which to me begs the question of whether there is worth in disputing that particular point, but I'm not going to be the one to make that call. Fhsig13 (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course; it's on neither of us. That's why this page is here - we need input from editors here, on whether this particular article should be deleted or not. Policies and guidelines can be ambiguous at times, which is a part of the reason why we have these discussions. byteflush <sub style="margin:0 2px">Talk 01:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess now we wait. Fhsig13 (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - his 9-month stint as (interim) head of the RCMP makes him notable in my opinion, however this article is thin as far as sourcing goes. The Toronto Star article is a nice start.   PK  T (alk)  12:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The WP:MILPERSON analogy seems to make sense. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't agree with the argument that his position as interim leader of the RCMP makes him inherently notable (though it would be enough to survive an A7). I don't see significant coverage about this person to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You forget that we can't cite television coverage. Comm. Paulson's retirement, and the inherent news of Dubeau replacing him was broadcast widely on Canadian television stations, such as Global News and CTV News Channel (Canada) in the month that followed these events. So, in my opinion, he has received broad media coverage, coupled with the news articles and website source provided, to pass WP:GNG. Fhsig13 (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the things that WP:RS requires is for sources to be WP:PUBLISHED, but this doesn't only mean "print media" or "online media". So, l'm pretty sure TV coverage can be cited as explained in WP:CITEHOW and WP:SAYWHERE. There are various templates you can use to do this such as Template:Cite episode or Template:Cite AV media; however, if you're going to provide a link to something found online to make assessment of the source easier, please be aware of WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER. You can use this AfD's talk page (see the "Talk" tab at the top) as a place to go into more detail about a particular source. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that information, it will go a long ways in terms of sourcing. I will start looking into the possible facets of doing so immediately, however, finding out exactly what days the stories aired on the various newcasts may be impossible, or at the least, quite hard to do, given the resources available. Fhsig13 (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You might try searching on official websites of new organizations, etc. since they often post video content. YouTube is sometimes OK, but you need to be aware of WP:YOUTUBE and once again stick to official channels. Lots of people upload content to YouTube (old news boradcasts, etc.) that they don't own the copyright on. YouTube's standard license might make it seem as if this content is OK for Wikipedia's purposes, but most of the time it's not. You don't need to provide a link to any specific video found online, but you should try and be as specific about the content you're citing as possible so that it can be properly assessed. You should also try to read/see the content yourself and not just assume it says what others claim it is saying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I am seriously unimpressed with the referencing and available coverage found so far. However, the argument that a man who was the head of one of the world's crack national law enforcement agencies is not notable, mostly due to the fact that we haven't gotten around to writing a guideline yet, strikes me as kinda lame. Yes his position was "interim." But interim here was not a few days or weeks. It was nine months. This isn't the strongest !vote I've cast in an AfD, but I think the subject passes, if barely, what should be a reasonable standard for notability of persons in his field. [About that A7...sigh...] -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I think we can extend SOLDIER(2) to this case - being 2nd in command / acting in command of a 20,000 man force (RCMP - all be it Canadian and mounted) - would apply. However, SOLDIER merely creates a presumption of notability - one can pass SOLDIER and still not meet GNG. I am not satisfied with the sourcing in the article, nor with what I dug up - e.g. - - however I am convinced that this individual does has coverage, and I am willing to assume that given the significance of the position held that there probably is more coverage out there.Icewhiz (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete There are a few votes which strike me as "probably notable," but after a decent search the amount of coverage for this person does not pass WP:GNG. The Toronto Star articles are not significant, as they just mention him due to his interim position, and the position itself does not pass any notability presumption guidelines. I don't believe we can construct a quality article here and am concerned about the quality of the keep votes, none of which strike me as particularly firm. SportingFlyer  talk  23:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Commissioner would have been clearly notable, deputy commissioner probably not. But he was acting Commissioner for a;most a year--head of the RCMP for a considerable period. Regardless of the title being temporary, being head of the force is sufficient for notability  DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would suggest that even deputy commissioner of a national, very famous police force is notable enough to keep, let alone acting commissioner. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.