Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yvon Duplessis


 * 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 of the debate was delete.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 13:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yvon Duplessis
WP:BIO Non-notable academic lawyer. John Nagle 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This article about an apparently non-notable lawyer who teaches at a Canadian school has touched off a flame war concerning his grading policies. Multiple edits have been made to the article over the last few weeks, but no new verifiable information has appeared.  "prod" and "verify" tags have been inserted and removed.  Threats have been made (see article history).  As someone uninvolved in the issue, I suggest just deleting the article. --John Nagle 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There are votes in favour of it being kept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yvon_Duplessis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.87.250 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per above. --John Nagle 04:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm in two minds about this, but a google search suggests that he really is a full professor. If so, that alone should may be enough for notability. But let's delete it to take the heat out, if people are actually making threats and no one is contributing anything worthwhile. If an article is created at some time in the future it may be a different story. Metamagician3000 04:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Responding to the above comments, threats and edit wars do not always merit an article deletion and being a professor does not always merit an article to be kept. Either way, delete the article as it fails WP:PROFTEST and recieves only 95 unique Google results . -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 04:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This looks like a borderline case to me as far as WP:PROFTEST goes. If he is a full professor at a prestigious university, that is a distinction that would probably might get him over the line. I've been assuming that the University of Ottawa would be pretty prestigious, but I realise it's not Oxford or Harvard or something, so it's open to argument. Notability is borderline. Article seems irredeemable at the moment. My vote stays as it was, just commenting. Metamagician3000 07:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article as expanded 06:20, 10 April 2006 24.43.87.250 should be considered. History BA keeps deleting things out of a personal vendetta on this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.87.250 (talk • contribs)
 * The record will show that I have deleted unsourced material from the article and have explained my reasons why. The editor who keeps adding this material, some of which may well be libelous, refuses to supply a verifiable source. HistoryBA 12:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to note, those who voted for the article to be kept on the talk page were all anonymous IP adresses.-- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 06:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, in response to PROF test, Me. Duplessis passes on item #1 in part as well as #2 and #5 in larger part. He is also notable for his performance in the aforementioned case (which History BA probably has already reverted again) as well as his relation to a Quebec historical personality (also incorrectly reverted by HistoryBA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.87.250 (talk • contribs)
 * If so, then please provide a reliable source that verifies these claims-- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 07:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete grading wars are not wikipedia material. &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  06:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not a grading war, i have never even taken a class with him. He has national noteworthiness particularly in eastern canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.87.250 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per nom, notability has not been established within the article. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 07:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and just end the mess. Gotta love rookie lawyering, though. Danny Lilithborne 11:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. Being related to Maurice does not constitute noteworthiness. Eusebeus 11:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (& Can't sleep, clown will eat me).-- blue 520  12:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- We're not going to give an article to every distant relative of Maurice Duplessis, nor to professors who have annoyed students by failing them. HistoryBA 12:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * At present I can't see anything offensive in this -- unless people object to a Canadian getting Wiki-space when there are doubtless PBS talkshow hosts in US who are still to sreep into these pages -- Keep -- SockpuppetSamuelson
 * Delete. Could someone point me to the spot in WP:PROFTEST where being a full professor at a major university alone qualifies someone for notability?  Somehow I am missing that; could we see some cites to notable academic papers, theories, awards?  Beyond that, no one with only 95 Ghits has national notability anywhere, even if I am a Yankee who must be suspected at all times of harboring screw-the-Quebecois sentiments.  RGTraynor 16:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth (and remember how I voted) see criterion 8 and then point 9 of the examples, which says "Receiving full professorship at a prestigious university, or receiving a named professorship at a reputable university, may be considered an award or honor under criterion 8." Note also that it is says, "may" not "shall", which makes the whole thing even more borderline (hence I've re-edited my edits above), and that I'm only answering the question, not acting as advocate for the "keep" case. :) Metamagician3000 08:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, in which case this guy wouldn't qualify; is the University of Ottawa really a "prestigious" university in the ranks of the Harvards and Stanfords, as opposed to a "reputable" university? RGTraynor 13:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know what is meant by a "prestigious" university. I'm pretty sure that Charles Sturt University does not count as "prestigious", though it is perfectly reputable, but I would count the Australian National University. I like to think that Monash University, where I hang out, is a prestigious institution, not just a big one. Canadians would doubtless have views as to which of their institutions are prestigious and/or reputable, but these are incredibly vague and relative terms. Metamagician3000 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 16:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Very week delete He seems notable enough, but there is no article here: there is a world of diffrence between a two paragraph stub and a two sentence stub.  Abstain if the article is expanded somewhat.  JeffBurdges 13:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No obvious claims to be more notable than the average. Hasn't obviously made a big impact according to google or google scholar.  Delete unless something comes out of the woodwork.  Ben Aveling 17:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This article should not be deleted, because Mr. Duplessis is one of the best legal scholars in Canada. You just don't know. Get a life! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurobest (talk • contribs)
 * Agreed, we don't know. But on the evidence we have, we have to make a judgement.  If you disagree, it's up to you to persuade us otherwise.  Thanks, Ben Aveling 10:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 *  Strong Keep Let me address a few points. First of all, the University of Ottawa is in Canada's capital and is, "Canada's University". It is one of the more important Universities in Canada behind McGill and University of Toronto. Second, Yvon Duplessis is a full professor, who has been published in many French journals. Wikipedia should not be biased against this despite the fact that these journals have smaller circulation due to smaller language population. Third, it is true, if you research on QuickLaw or WestLaw (I may not reproduce it here for copyright reasons) you will see that he did indeed litigate the Supreme Court decision Entreprises E.A. Bourque (Québec) Inc. v. Hull (Ville) [1996] C.S.C.R. no 368. Fourth, I have heard from other professors that he does indeed grade on a 120 point scale and the average grade in most of his classes is usually below 50%. Although not enough to be notable on its own, it is an interesting anecdoate and highly irregular. The man is a graduate of Harvard and I have been told he is related to former Quebec Premier Maurice Duplessis. This is a Strong Keep not because he is highly notable, but because he clearly passes the de-minimus test to be on Wikipedia. Anber 07:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The De minimus test? "De minimis, in a more formal legal sense, means something which is unworthy of the law's attention."  You're going to have to explain that one to me - I don't follow your meaning in this context.  I haven't heard of the case you mention.  Is it particularly interesting?  Regards, Ben Aveling 10:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see what's not clear about the use of the term De minimus, if you have seen its use before, or even if you read through its entire Wikipedia article, you'll see that it refers to a 'minimum threshold for non-triviality'. Just substitute that in and it will make sense.Anber 13:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. You are saying that although he is not highly notable, he is notable enough.  Why not just say that, and make all our lives easier.  If you want to impress us, then do so by being clear in your communictaions.  Thanks, Ben Aveling 15:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Canada's University" is the institution's advertising slogan. It proves absolutely nothing.  Furthermore, "I have heard" and "I have been told" do not meet the Wikipedia standard for a verifiable source.  HistoryBA 13:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It`s borderline but much less borderline than a lot of Wikipedia articles. I agree with the writers who say that the context of a French Canadian professor should be considered when interpreting Wiki rules because there should not be a systematic bias against an equally notable segment of the population at large who just happen to be less recognized on internet sites. Remember the internet overwhelmingly more English than it is French; Mr. Duplessis has been published in many print Media.

Also, I noticed that nobody has refuted his involvement in the Hull Supreme Court Case. Coupled with his full status (part of the prof test) and also his bizzare tendencies this seems enough (barely)
 * Comment: A case upon which there are only a handful of unique G-hits and nothing notable off of Lexum; may I ask why you consider this case any sort of a landmark, and why Duplessis was any more notable than the other attorneys involved in the case? So he litigated a case before the Canadian Supreme Court; do you have any notion how very many attorneys do that every session? RGTraynor 03:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

After all, Wikipedia has a tribute to a Dancing Banana!!!


 * Yes, thank you, I have raised the Supreme Court Case before, but History BA keeps deleting it because he is trying to prove his point.


 * Not discussed yet: Yvon Duplessis has also authored a number of French Language books. http://thema.caij.qc.ca/rooms/portal/media-type/html/user/anon/page/caij_municipal_doctrine.psml/js_pane/P-106035c6d95-101ec


 * 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.