Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bourque


 * 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. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  01:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

James Bourque

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:GNG. While the article does make some claims towards asserting notability, it is entirely unreferenced. A google search and a google book search have yielded no sources where James Bourque is the primary subject. 4meter4 (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, there is nothing that makes the article's subject notable.  VegasCasinoKid (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as of now. Absolutely no on-line coverage, but given his privy council status there is a chance of offline reliable sources which would make him notable. I've done searches for offline sources, but can't find anything in the academic world that would suggest notability. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If other sources have been found, then by all means keep. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did a ProQuest "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" search, and was able to get this up to six references. I'm still not thrilled with the volume of sourcing I was able to find — it's still far too dependent on obituaries for my liking — but I do think that being one of the very rare non-cabinet ministers ever to be invested into the Privy Council is enough of a claim of notability to keep, because if we did delete this he would be the only person in the entire history of the Privy Council of Canada without an article of his own. So I'm down with the keep, but would still like to see further reference improvement if at all possible. Bearcat (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I can't withdraw my nomination at this point, as two people have already voted delete. However, with Bearcat's excellent work I now support Keeping this article.4meter4 (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the sourcing Bearcat dug up. The Interior  (Talk) 08:32, 28 March 2016 (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.