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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Philippe DioGuardi

Philippe DioGuardi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

no verifiable, independent, third-party sources; the subject is not notable or made notable by virtue of having been found guilty of professional misconduct or having published tax books - law societies find lawyers guilty of misconduct on a regular basis; the article lacks neutrality and is self-promotional AoJ.KM ( talk) 03:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable tax lawyer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment. There do appear to be verifiable, independent, third-party sources in GNews and GBooks. Lack of neutrality or self promotion in the article is WP:SOFIXIT. The Toronto Star describes DioGuardi as "famous", "prominent" and "high profile" in various articles. James500 ( talk) 03:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Hi @ James500: Thank you for commenting. I looked further and, excluding his own website, came across only one mention of him being either "famous", "prominent", or "high profile" (two Toronto Star articles, one obscure blog). These articles are about his divorce, being found guilty of misconduct by the Law Society, or his own tax problems, and appear to use those words liberally. For example, the mention of him being "famous" is in regards to his ad campaign (i.e. you might know him from seeing his billboards around town). So yes, he's been called famous, but I have read WP:BIO's notability guidelines and cannot see how this individual meets the primary consideration (i.e. is "worthy of notice", of "note", "remarkable", or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". These guidelines note that fame is a secondary consideration, and it would seem that more societal consensus is needed to reach what an ordinary person would consider "famous" than one Toronto Star article using the word. So, I'm still left wondering what makes this particular individual notable. This is not someone who has made an objectively significant impact on the Canadian legal system, in which case I would be happy to rewrite the article; otherwise, hundreds if not thousands of lawyers should have articles dedicated to them. AoJ.KM ( talk) 21:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Seems to have prominent news coverage, such as him getting a $5,000 fine for professional misconduct. Since it is well-cited, I've added that to the article, making it a bit less promotional. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep has enough rs coverage to pass WP:GNG, apart from being a notable lawyer he is notable for being a co-author of a book that was on the Canadian business bestseller list for 10 weeks. Atlantic306 ( talk) 10:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Hi @ Atlantic306: Other than a claim on his own website, there is no record I can find of his book ever being on a bestseller list for 10 weeks. And there's no mention of what particular list to assist in the search. WP:GNG states that the coverage should be "independent of the subject" and excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. References 1, 2, 4 (broken link), 5 (broken link), and 7 cannot be considered as they are "advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website". 3 isn't a reference (should be corrected as a link to an article on the Barreau du Quebec). 6 is a Toronto Star article on his professional misconduct. 8 is a link to a short article in which he gives some tax advice. 9 is a broken link, the article no longer exists on Macleans website, the article may actually be coverage of his father, and I can't find an archived copy anywhere (maybe someone else can help?). I realize all of these references can be fixed, but my point is that other than 6 and 8, we aren't left with much of anything. And although no one has suggested it, the only other coverage he has really received is for his divorce, and I don't think it would be appropriate to cover that in a Wikipedia article. This is the first article I have ever put up for nomination, so I would genuinely appreciate some more feedback on the points I'm raising, from either yourself or others, as I would like to continuing working on the project in my spare time. Thank you in advance for any guidance. Cheers. AoJ.KM ( talk) 17:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Will do a search for the book listing later, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 08:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- Straightforward pass of GNG as evinced by for instance [1], [2], [3], [4]. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 17:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Links 1, 2, 4 are regarding the professional misconduct / issues arising from it; link 3 is about his divorce. Covered by newspaper regarding one issue (other than his divorce, which makes it two issues, but I can't see that being included in his article) ≠ a person whose biography is automatically notable unless there's something remarkable, unusual, etc WP:BIO. I fail to see a rough patch in a lawyer's life qualifies. Analogies: is every doctor found guilty of malpractice and whose proceedings were briefly covered by a city's paper worthy of a Wikipedia article; or, is every criminal (which this individual is not, to be clear) whose name is splashed in the paper during trial worthy of a Wikipedia article? Doubtful, unless there's something uniquely worthy of notice - some special circumstance - which isn't the case here. There's nothing encyclopedic about this blip in someone's career/personal life that had a few newspaper articles written about it. Anyway, I've said my piece and this is my last weigh in on the subject. Thank to all for your comments. AoJ.KM ( talk) 04:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - the only thing that suggests notability is the professional misconduct. Findings of professional misconduct (pm) are actually fairly routine. Per WP:Weight the pm would have to have the greatest weight in the article, the promotional stuff is definitely routine, as is the divorce. But putting the weight on pm would violate WP:BLP1E. So I don't see how or why we'd want to squeeze in a promotional article in under our rules for notability. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 12:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment am sticking with my earlier keep vote on the basis that he is notable as an author as shown by these reliable sources:
• Globe and Mail article about him and the book
• CBC independent review of the book
• Newspaper article about the book and his authorship,
• Vancouver Sun independent review of the book
• National Post article about the book and his authorship.

These sources show his notability as an author and the passing of WP:BASIC. Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:30, 25 April 2018 (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.