Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treasurers of the Law Society of Upper Canada

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 no consensus. Wifione ^Message 16:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Treasurers of the Law Society of Upper Canada[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Five WP:BLPs, relying entirely on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage, of people who are "notable" only as treasurers of the Law Society of Upper Canada (the regulatory body for the legal profession in Ontario.) I've tagged some other articles created by the same user for the same reason for improvement instead, as they made stronger claims of notability (e.g. holding a provincial or federal judgeship), but being the treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:LAWYERS by itself — if it's the only claim of notability that can be made, then a person doesn't get an encyclopedia article on that basis alone. No other substantive claim of notability is being made for any of these people, however, and with purely primary sourcing there's no WP:GNG claim to be made either. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Janet E. Minor's article claims notability on other grounds, though I am not sure if it is sufficient. The same goes for Eleanor Susan Elliott.

Thomas G. Conway's 2007 award seems to meet the requirement. Ditto with Laurie Pawlitza, who "was selected by Canadian Lawyer Magazine as one of the "Top 25 Most Influential" people in the justice system" (from the article). People who are recognized as being at the top of their field are notable, as noted both in WP:ANYBIO and in the following section on "creative professionals".

So, keep Thomas G. Conway and Laurie Pawlitza. Neutral on Janet E. Minor and Eleanor Susan Elliott. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even an WP:ANYBIO claim still has to be reliably sourced to count — primary sources are not acceptable proof that a person belongs in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources may not be used to provide evidence of broad coverage and the like. They can be used to support particular facts, such as the awards won, unless there is reason to believe they are unreliable when it comes to reporting those facts. Given the significant professional consequences of misreporting awards, etc. on their websites, I think we can generally take for granted that professional websites are reliable for reporting those bare facts. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but the evidence of broad reliable source coverage has to be there to make the person eligible for a Wikipedia article in the first place — primary source referencing is certainly acceptable for some confirmation of facts after enough reliable source coverage has been added to cover off the basic notability issue, but no matter how many seemingly impressive facts you can rattle off, they still don't qualify for an article if the primary sources are all you can come up with. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He meets the criteria, so is covered. For the sake of completeness and usefulness as an encyclopedia, we do not always insist on evidence of broad coverage in the press if certain other (specified) criteria are met. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that if certain specified criteria are met, then the evidence of media coverage doesn't have to be as broad as it does to get over GNG. But the person's passage of the criteria in question still has to be verifiable in at least one reliable non-primary source. The volume of reliable sourcing necessary to get the person into Wikipedia is certainly reduced if a person passes one of those subject-specific guidelines — but no notability criterion ever reduces that volume to zero. "Inherent" notability for any class of topic exists only in the sense that for some classes of topic, we know for a fact that reliable sourcing about them does exist somewhere even if the article isn't already in a FA-class state. Such notability is not extended as an exemption from the requirement to cite reliable sourcing, however — that would open us up to having to keep hoax articles about people who claim to pass one of the notability standards but actually don't. Reliable sourcing still has to exist, however, and a biographical article about a person (especially if it's a WP:BLP) always still has to cite at least one independent reliable source regardless of what notability criterion they're claiming to meet. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already mentioned once, WP:LAWYERS was not intended by its author to be a exhaustive listing of every factor that might make a lawyer notable. James500 (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've mentioned before, none of Wikipedia's subject-specific inclusion guidelines was intended by its author to be an exhaustive listing of every factor that might make a practitioner of that occupation notable — they all leave room for other considerations and new points that might not have been previously considered. So just going around saying this every time somebody invokes LAWYERS, without actually addressing any specific reason why the specific lawyer(s) in question might actually qualify for inclusion, isn't a productive contribution to the discussion. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the arguments that you have advanced for deletion is that when I recently wrote the draft proposal WP:LAWYERS, it did not occur to me to include a criteria that consisted of holding the highest office within the gift of the practitioners of a country, state or province or holding the highest office in the governing body of the practitioners of a country, state or province, or something to that effect. Is there any reason, that you can think of, why such a criteria shouldn't be included in WP:LAWYERS? James500 (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Because "treasurer" is not "the highest office", (2) neither is it an office that inherently makes its holder a topic of any inherent interest to anybody not directly involved in that organization itself, (3) even if a person does pass one of our "automatically notable" subject-specific inclusion rules, our article about them still has to be based on at least some actual coverage in reliable sources — it reduces the amount of coverage you need to cite to start an article with to a lower volume than it takes to get over GNG, but does not completely exempt you from having to cite any reliable sources at all — but "treasurer of the Law Society" is not an office that necessarily guarantees in and of itself that any such coverage will actually exist. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following sources call it "the highest office" in Ontario on both counts: "The Last Day, the Last Hour" (Toronto University)240; (1941) 11 Fortnightly Law Journal 129 [1]; (1927) 24 Delta Chi Quarterly 33 [2]; (1880) Dominion Annual Register and Review 199 [3]. James500 (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The treasurer is the leader of the entire organization now? Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that is what the sources mean by "highest office". The "senior officer" of one of the four Inns of Court in London is certainly called the Treasurer (Final Report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services, cmnd 7648, vol 1, para 32.3). This may be the origin of the terminology, since Canada is a former colony. The Inns were founded before the end of the fourteenth century, so it should not be suprising if they use a lot of archaic terminology such as applying the word "treasurer" to the head of the organization. James500 (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2014 (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.