Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Spencer Lanthier


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Even those who argue to keep seem to generally agree that the sourcing for this article is thin. No indication of sufficient sourcing has been provided, so the delete arguments are substantially stronger on the merits. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

J. Spencer Lanthier

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I stumbled across this article yet could not find WP:BLP-abiding sources for that topic on search engine. Therefore, I nominated here to generate discussion on to delete this unsourced biography. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * A member of the Order of Canada meets "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" for notability. 99.253.42.249 (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I later failed to find any significant coverage in secondary sources, which is why I started this deletion discussion. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Although WP:ANYBIO also notes: "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included", so would need to be backed up by non-primary WP:SIGCOV. I can see numerous run-of-the-mill news reports to substantiate a number of claims in the articles via newspapers.com (where the subject has achieved a new position), but not much in the way of secondary significant coverage. Curiously, there is not much coverage of the subject across the period 1999-2000, when he received the honour. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - obviously notable. Order of Canada. — A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count)  18:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Order of Canada is an acceptable notability claim if the article can be sourced properly, but it is not so "inherently" notable that a subject would be exempted from having to have any reliable sourcing just because the article has the words "Order of Canada" in it. Even people with notability claims still have to have sourcing, which this doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Trying one more week's relisting. Right now, it looks like No consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It's borderline, but I think the Order of Canada and coverage of the failed 1999 KPMG/Arthur Andersen merger push it just over the line. I've added some sources to the article. Wall Street Journal also covered Lanthier's role in the failed merger. Jfire (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, considering he's a Member of the Order of Canada (the third tier), which seems to be the equivalent of a British MBE, certainly not a fast-track conferal of notability on Wikipedia. Being a CEO of an large accountancy firm wouldn't qualify him either. Sionk (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Sionk (talk). I wouldn't regard a British MBE as inherently a badge of notability, and I don't think this is, either. Athel cb (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a small comment, the Order of Canada is not a political appointment, it is done via people being nominated (https://www.gg.ca/en/honours/canadian-honours/order-canada/nominate-someone) and an advisory committee reviews the individual or group. It is a high Canadian honour. YUL89YYZ (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, but in that case it's a higher honour than MBE, which is the lowest grade of the Order of the British Empire, lower even than OBE, which is sometimes said to stand for "Other Bugger's Effort". Athel cb (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can we get to a consensus as to whether beign awarded a Member of the Order of Canada is sufficient for per se notability? Bearian (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If the Order of Canada isn't a well-known and significant award or honor as specified by WP:ANYBIO#1, I think we need to rewrite ANYBIO. It's surely sufficient per se for notability if you're of the line of thought that there are things that can make a person notable per se. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that the Order of Canada isn't a valid notability claim at all — but especially given that the subject was inducted only at the lowest "member" level, it isn't so "inherently" notable that the article merely having the words "Order of Canada" in it would be enough in and of itself to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on more reliable sourcing than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I meant. Unless I'm much mistaken, you're of the line of thought that there are no things that can make a person notable per se, so you don't find this to sufficient. Others are happy to say "keep: passes WP:ANYBIO" in their AfD arguments. -- asilvering (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are database listings/name mentions, nothing that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Being a Member of the Order of Canada,. does not meet ANYBIO and there is no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV about the subject related to receiving this award. Also not seeing any WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth related to their business career. BLPs require strong sourcing. Ping me if sources are found.  // Timothy :: talk  22:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the Order of Canada isn't considered "a well-known and significant award or honor" as specified by WP:ANYBIO#1, perhaps we should reconsider to abolish the rule ANYBIO. I don't harbor jealousy towards someone who has been awarded the OOC. Thanks. 1.47.195.61 (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand how every NHL hockey player (here is an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Britz who played 8 games) has an article but the Order of Canada is not worthy or notable. It is much more difficult to get the Order of Canada. Not to vent (which I guess I am) but this has been one of the main reasons I no longer contribute to Wikipedia. YUL89YYZ (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A member of the Order of Canada can get an article if they're shown to pass GNG. It isn't the kind of award or honour where the mere presence of the words "Order of Canada" in the article would be sufficient to exempt a person from actually having to be sourced properly, but that's not the same thing as being "non-notable" at all. Like I said above, even people with valid notability claims still have to have valid GNG-worthy sourcing — the issue here isn't the notability or non-notability of the OC, it's the inadequacy of his sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep per ANYBIO. I don't think it's fair to say that an ANYBIO pass needs "GNG sourcing": if they did, what would be the point of having ANYBIO? Rather, I think passing ANYBIO means they only needs "sufficient sourcing for verifiability." I think the distinction is subtle but relevant: "GNG sourcing" conveys, to me, 3+ proper WP:SIGCOV sources. That kind of sourcing is a notability slam-dunk. But if we have a subject with what asilvering calls per se notability, the subject is entitled to an article and that article can be written with information gleaned from non-independent sources or trivial mentions. I think a comparable situation might be WP:NAUTHOR; if someone has written several notable books, they are entitled to an article per NAUTHOR#3. That biographical article can then be written with sources like interviews, press releases, book prefaces, etc, none of which would have qualified as "GNG sourcing" on their own. Translating that to this case, if all we can write about Lanthier is a single sentence stating that he has an OOC, cited to the govt of Canada site, then I think ANYBIO means that is a stub we should have. Pleasantly, we can go beyond that. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * He was awarded an MOC (the lowest of the three levels), not a OOC (the middle level). I've participated in multiple AfDs where OBEs (the UK equivalent of the OOC) haven't been deemed sufficient to bestow notability, let alone MBEs (the equivalent of MOC, which are given to anyone from actors, charity fundraisers, teachers and crossing patrol officers). Yes, I agree that ANYBIO explaining or defining a bit better. Sionk (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2024 (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.