Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Trudeau
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 22:55, 7 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
- 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: which is default keep. I suggest further discussion about merging/redirecting be followed up on the talk page of the target article. Synergy 05:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Michel Trudeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not notable. While his father and brother are both notable, Michel Trudeau is notable for having been the son of a former Prime Minister of Canada, one who left office 24 years ago. Being a child of a current prime minister may or may not be notable, but being the child of a long gone prime minister is hardly notable in any way. It was tragic that Michel Trudeau died young in an accident, but unfortunately that is something too common everywhere in the world not notable either. JdeJ (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Pierre Trudeau, where everything notable about him is mentioned. How long ago his father was Prime Minister doesn't matter - notability is not inherited. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/merge to Pierre Trudeau. Michel's death and the subsequent search for his body (which, if I remember, was never found) was a very notable event at the time. It was one of the few things that broke his father. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable in the context of the call for improved avalanche warnings in Canada. His death generated a lot of media coverage in Canada. --Eastmain (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree, his death was a major news story in Canada at the time, but that was because of his father and there are thousands of news stories every day that doesn't lead to any notability in the long run. As others already said, all the relevant information (including how the accident led to calls for improved avalanche warnings) can be found in the articles Pierre Trudeau and Justin Trudeau. JdeJ (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Pierre Trudeau. There may or may not be adequate sources for a biography but as there are none now, merge with possibility of creation. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. The nom misinterprents the "notability is not inherited" principle. That principle means that a person is not notable simply by virtue of being closely associated to a notable person. However, if such an individual receives substantial coverage by independent sources (for whatever reason), they become notable, even if they have done absolutely nothing remarkable or noteworthy. In this case there was substantial newscoverage of his death and its aftermath[1], which extended beyond the time of the event itself (November 1998). There were 21 newsstories in 1999-2000 regarding him[2]. There are some BLP1E features here (since the coverage mainly concerns the accident his death and the search that followed), but it does not really make sense to create an article about the accident. So this does seem to merit a weak keep in my opinion. Nsk92 (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only notable things about Michel Trudeau are his father and his death. There are about 100 avalanche deaths per year,[3] and some probably have Google hits, but I don't think that alone is enough content for a whole article. If someone proves me wrong and expands it I'd be OK with a split, but right now this looks like a perma-stub. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Subject of the article himself became notable, as a number of primary sources can now (sadly) attest. user:j (aka justen) 06:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not judging from the article, all it mentions is his father and his death. Compare this article with his brothers, Justin Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau and the difference is huge. He may have become just as notable had he lived, but unfortunately that wasn't the case. The article has been tagged for its lack of any sources for well over one year, with nothing at all being added. JdeJ (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone can become notable due to or following their death. The length of this article compared to Justin Trudeau or Alexandre Trudeau isn't relevant to deletion. A full discussion of his notability may only require a paragraph or two, but, again, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. user:j (aka justen) 18:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep The above is a good reason to have a shorter article, but not a reason to have none. Whether an avalanche death is notable depends among other things on who is involved.I agree with Nsk92's analysis of the "not inherited" guideline. DGG (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If Michel Trudeau is notable, how is it possible that not a single reference has been found for his article despite it being tagged for more than a year due to its lack of any references? JdeJ (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because no one has bothered. Here's a couple sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." --Explodicle (T/C) 19:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A "separate biography" from an article on the event. In this case, the event was not notable; the person involved in the event is now notable, partly as the effects of the event. user:j (aka justen) 19:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that his only historical significance is through his father. 99% of readers will only be interested in Michel Trudeau because they're interested in his dad, so the paragraph we have on him is better suited there. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I think your assessment is inaccurate. He certainly owed much of his notoriety to his father, but his notability today is independent of his father, and is sadly much related to the events surrounding his death. I think that many more than one percent of the visitors to his article are likely to happen upon his article due to an interest in avalanche awareness. In any event, I think our differing opinions are clear at this point, so I don't think it'd be helpful for me to add anything further to my earlier statements that the article is notable and should be kept as such. user:j (aka justen) 21:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The question I asked myself when nominating the article for deletion was whether he has any notability at all today? I haven't seen anything written about him for many years, apart for a sentence or two in articles about Justin now with the election coming up. JdeJ (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if that's the case, we should go ahead and clean out those likely thousands of articles of people who died a few years back and haven't had anything written about them in the last couple of years? Our deletion policy doesn't say notability requires so many articles from within the last twelve months. user:j (aka justen) 13:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NTEMP. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The question I asked myself when nominating the article for deletion was whether he has any notability at all today? I haven't seen anything written about him for many years, apart for a sentence or two in articles about Justin now with the election coming up. JdeJ (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I think your assessment is inaccurate. He certainly owed much of his notoriety to his father, but his notability today is independent of his father, and is sadly much related to the events surrounding his death. I think that many more than one percent of the visitors to his article are likely to happen upon his article due to an interest in avalanche awareness. In any event, I think our differing opinions are clear at this point, so I don't think it'd be helpful for me to add anything further to my earlier statements that the article is notable and should be kept as such. user:j (aka justen) 21:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that his only historical significance is through his father. 99% of readers will only be interested in Michel Trudeau because they're interested in his dad, so the paragraph we have on him is better suited there. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A "separate biography" from an article on the event. In this case, the event was not notable; the person involved in the event is now notable, partly as the effects of the event. user:j (aka justen) 19:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think a shorter article, but not a deletion is necessary in this case. j and DGG made very good reasons and I agree with them on this assessment. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 13:39, 17 September 2008 (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.