Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Claude Danis


 * 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. — Jake   Wartenberg  03:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Jean-Claude Danis

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:ACADEMIC Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ya, nothing there of note. Lara  15:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions.  —Eastmain (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Eastmain (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. He is not just an academic. Does being a commissioner with the independent board for workers' compensation appeals in Quebec make him automatically notable? At what point does a judgeship make someone automatically notable? -- Eastmain (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * the normal standard I apply is a "high" judge - one in a court which can set precedent (in common law countries). A cousin of mine is an employment tribunal judge noted for her socialist views (hence the epithet Red Tam) but that isn't enough for inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found and added a number of references to him in the book On the take: crime, corruption, and greed in the Mulroney years by Stevie Cameron. These are more interesting than the present-day political science lectureship. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it add up to WP:GNG, though? That's a single work. Ironholds (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see enough here to establish notability and I've never heard of him so he's not making much of a local splash either. Eusebeus (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep not as an academic, but a political figure based on the fall-out from his book: 52 GNews Archive refs, which is a good many for a person of  Canadian interest His book had many significant reviews, even in the US.   Needless to say, "I never heard of him" is one of the classic non-reasons.    DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously DGG did not read the AfD very carefully... or at all. His gsearch above is for Stevie Cameron's screed, perhaps one of best known books on Canadian politics in recent memory, and hence was able to conclude that this was "a good many for a person of Canadian interest...." Or, de M. Danis les sources se taisent. I've alerted DGG to his slip-up AND his inadvertent condescension. Eusebeus (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the disconnect between the AfD and the search; I did slip up here. I will revote after I check again.    DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think there's enough coverage here to show notability. Kevin (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * delete - I agree with Kevin, my researches also failed to turn up significant coverage. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 23 October 2009 (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.