Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Perrin

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 sole "delete" !vote is by the nom (and usually the nom already counts as a delete !vote). Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Perrin[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_Perrin&action=edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Benjamin Perrin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a living person does not meet notability criteria. Article describes an associate professor who was briefly in the news four years ago in relation to a secondary role in the Canadian Senate expenses scandal. Notability of his academic work does not appear to achieve criteria for academics. Notability tag has been in place for nearly two years with little improvement. Geoff NoNick (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has enough sufficient sources to qualify the WP:BLP. Sheldybett (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm disappointed the nominator has chosen not to include in his summary Perrin's most notable aspects: author of Invisible Chains and many academic works. Canada's only person to be awarded a "TIP Hero" by the US department of State. Senior fellow at the Macdonald Laurier Institute for Public Policy, researcher at the University of Colombia, former adviser to the Canadian Office of the Prime Minister and "Special Adviser and Legal Counsel to the Prime Minister". The list goes on... --John B123 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, like many academics, he has written a book on his area of study and received positive recognition within his academic field for his work. I refer you to WP:NPROF to explore why that is not in itself sufficient to establish notability. In particular, I note that the "TIP Hero" award he is described as having received is not itself deemed notable enough for an article, and doesn't even appear on the first page of results of a Google search for it. I would argue that there is probably a good notability case for his book; in any event, if his book is what is notable then his mention as the author of it in the book's article is sufficient. We don't need both an article for the book and an article for the individual, who is notable primarily for the book. Likewise, he was indeed a legal counsel to the Canadian Prime Minister for a year or so. This doesn't appear to in itself establish notability (I note that I cannot find any other articles for other individuals who held that position). As I mentioned in the submission, his notability in relation to that position was as the result of a time-limited news event, which is captured under WP:BIO1E. Geoff NoNick (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • As pointed our below, he easily meets to criteria of WP:AUTHOR --John B123 (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it's at all clear that he satisfies the very narrow criteria required for someone to be considered a notable author under WP:AUTHOR. He is not (1) regarded as an important figure or widely cited as an author; (2) known for having created a new concept or theory; (3) known for having created a "well known" work; or (4) the author of a "monumental" work and has not drawn "significant critical attention". WP:AUTHOR describes a way for a individual like John Kennedy Toole to be considered notable on the basis of a single published work; to put it mildly, Benjamin Perrin does not meet this high standard. Geoff NoNick (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW Keep. his widely reviewed book, which provoked another author to write a notable book in response, clearly carries him past WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My fuller response on the WP:AUTHOR case is above. Being "widely reviewed" in the current press is not one of the criteria. The author who was "provoked" to write a book in response is an excellent example of an actually notable author, and I think the side-by-side comparison with Benjamin Perrin is instructive. WP:SNOW does not apply: this is not a "long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussion". We're taking a show of hands on a topic over which reasonably-minded people can disagree. Geoff NoNick (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite being an apparently accomplished individual with an interesting background, I don't feel he meets the criteria set out for an author under WP:AUTHOR or for an academic under WP:NPROF. It's worthwhile noting that this article was actually created during the news reporting surrounding the Canadian Senate expenses scandal, which further seems to suggest that WP:BIO1E applies. Geoff NoNick (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Headlines demonstrating sustained notability:
  • B.C. prof (Perrin) shines light on modern-day slavery, Winnipeg Free Press; 09 Oct 2010: A.1.
  • Mike Duffy trial: Who is Benjamin Perrin? CBC Television; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (Aug 20, 2015)
  • Ontario's justice system improves, but has issues; There's more work to do, Benjamin Perrin and Richard Audas write Ottawa Citizen 05 Mar 2018: A.9.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those "headlines" are, respectively: a contemporaneous review of his single published book; a media piece related to the WP:BIO1E event for which he is publicly known; and an unsolicited op-ed that he submitted to a city newspaper, the link to which is here. The op-ed is the only item from within the past couple of years. I don't see that this establishes "sustained notability". Geoff NoNick (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your assertion that "The op-ed is the only item from within the past couple of years." is inaccurate, see: (Judges cannot be overly swayed by victim impact statements: legal experts, The Hamilton Spectator (Online), Hamilton: Torstar Syndication Services, a Division of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. Jan 30, 2019.: "Benjamin Perrin, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, said victim impact statements have been part of the Canadian justice system since the late 1980s, and were introduced out of concern that victims were being left out.In 2015, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights came into effect. It established the right of those harmed by a crime to present their feelings, including photographs, and allows judges to consider the statements as part of sentencing decisions.Perrin said such a large number of statements as in the Broncos case is rare, but it speaks to the impact of the crime, which is relevant. "There's a lot of caution that needs to be taken by judges in considering the victim impact statements, but they do provide valuable evidence that can be a source for them to arrive at a fair and appropriate sentence," said Perrin, who was a legal adviser to former prime minister Stephen Harper.") Plus this gNews search: [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a great deal more WP:SIGCOV of him over more than a decade, as editors above have pointed out. My point here is that if an individual has a widely reviewed and discussed book in 2010, and is involved in a notable legal case in 2015, that makes 2 EVENTS. You cannot argue for deletion using BIO1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting approach - I admit that I hadn't interpreted the publication of his book as a significant event in itself. On consideration, I'm not sure that I'm convinced it really applies: the book enjoyed as many reviews as are typical of a well-written book on a relevant topic, but it doesn't seem to have particularly made a splash in the media. To the extent that this was WP:SIGCOV, isn't that coverage sufficiently addressed by the Invisible Chains article, just as his secondary involvement in the Canadian Senate expenses scandal is addressed there? Perhaps a redirect to Invisible Chains would be appropriate, rather than deletion? Geoff NoNick (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_Perrin&oldid=900125863"