Talk:Brigette DePape

Speech from the throne article?

There is no article on the speech from the throne, that this could be merged into. Can't really qualify for the 41st Parliament article. But undoubtedly something this unprecedented should be somewhere. But where? -- Zanimum (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

How about Canadian Senate Page Program? LastOthello (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs with Canadian Senate Page Program. It represents an anomaly, rather than the norm, so it wouldn't be helpful to readers looking for information about the program. Tunborough (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't refer to the incident as an "anomaly". That carries such a negative connotation. I rather think that this incident exemplifies one of the finest moments of our democratic system, just as the somewhat similar gestures of Daniel Ellsberg, John Perkins or Bradley Manning who used their privileged position within the inner circle of power to speak out about what they were witnessing. In any event, I believe that Brigette DePape's courageous gesture should definitely be mentioned in the Canadian Senate Page Program article. To paraphrase an old British politician, "that was one of the finest hours" of the Page Program. If an article for the Speech from the throne is ever created, it should also be mentioned there. Oclupak (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This even occurred in Parliament, not the Senate Page Program. The article to which it is merged should represent what happened, not what enabled her to be present. - BalthCat (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I object to the proposed deletion of this article on the grounds that the subject does meet the criteria for notability.

While, typically, a biographical article like this which features a subject notable for a single event or action would be a likely candidate for merge or deletion, this is an atypical case. The subject was the first (and, so far, only) Parliamentary Page in Canadian history to engage in political protest within Parliament. It’s my understanding that this is also the first occurrence of a throne speech (a fairly significant event for Canadian government, particularly for a new — in this case new majority — government) being disrupted. Further, it appears (this detail remains to be fully corroborated) that this is the first time a protest has occurred on the floor of the Canadian Senate from someone other than a Senator or Member of Parliament.

Regardless of what the future may hold, the subject’s action will now stand as a point of historical interest in Canadian political history. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

She should still be merged somewhere. But it is true she's more notable than Grant Neufeld. LastOthello (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Neufeld won the Alberta Centennial Medal in 2005, he passes the basic criteria of notability. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 05:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Does the point made by GrantNeufeld above trump WP:BLP1E? Well, pointless to discuss it here. To WP:AfD, then?--Shirt58 (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

“If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.” —WP:BLP1E

Important to note here is the use of the word “generally” (and, secondarily, “avoid”). This is not an absolute rule but, rather, a general rule. I believe the question to answer here is: Does the subject fit within that general rule or, as I have suggested above, should this be held as an exception.

Before this is taken to AfD, I would like to see a counter-argument to my claims stated. If there is a specific argument for rejecting what I have put forward as basis for notability of the subject, then that could be grounds for calling for AfD.

On one further point, admittedly entirely speculative on my part, it strikes me that the subject is not even remotely “likely to remain, a low-profile individual,” given the extreme level of response I have been seeing (so far, only in non-citable sources such as online networking sites and personal correspondence — but it’s only been about half a day) from activists across the country (myself among them) who are speaking out in support of her action and are planning further actions as follow-on. Again, this is speculative (given that it's about what hasn’t happened yet) and not a valid basis for determining the subject’s notability. But, I believe it may contribute to informing our collective editorial thinking as to the applicability of the WP:BLP1E rule. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with GrantNeufeld. I think it is premature for us to discuss deletion. At present, Ms. DePape is certainly notable, and readers may come here for more information. (I came to this page looking for a definitive spelling of her name; having seen two or three different versions, sometimes in the same source. I think we have it right.) Where this item belongs is Protests against Stephen Harper. That page doesn't exist yet, and if it still does not in a year or two, then perhaps this page can be retired. Tunborough (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Since people known solely for one event are presumed not to merit a standalone article, the burden should fall on the editor(s) arguing that this subject constitutes an exception. I've not heard anything yet that persuades me this subject is exceptional. My view is that while event may be noteworthy, Ms DePape (as a biographical subject) is not -- and pretty clearly not. If the event merits a standalone article, the article should be retitled to reflect the proper emphasis. Brigette DePape would redirect to the article named after the event.

But does the event merit a standalone article? In my opinion, probably not. Consider the case of the Apotex donations to Joe Volpe's 2006 Liberal leadership bid: this event garnered plenty of press at the time -- possibly more than Brigette DePape's protest, and certainly more sustained coverage lasting several days. Wikipedia does not have a separate article about this event. Instead, the event is covered in a section of the article Joe Volpe and is mentioned briefly in Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2006. Similarly, Ms DePape is mentioned in the "notable pages" section of the article Canadian Senate Page Program. I think that's adequate -- though, again, I feel the emphasis on Ms DePape rather than the event is misplaced.

In short, I think Brigette DePape should redirect to Canadian Senate Page Program#Notable Pages.

Finally, should this article survive, care must be taken to prevent it from becoming a coatrack article whose principal purpose is to air and publicize criticisms of Harper. For the same reason I oppose the creation of Protests against Stephen Harper, which is likely produce a laundry list designed to enhance the notoriety of those protests rather than to cover them in due proportion to their noteworthiness. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary, and she's pretty darned notable. No one has done that in Canada before. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• I feel that Grant, the creator of this article, has a WP:COI here. He has admitted as much that he shares and endorses DePape's actions. This little lady has wisely chosen her protest venue, but this is just a media stunt. WP does not exist to report the news, nor does it serve as a soapbox to political causes. Her stunt in Parliament puts her into the WP:ONEEVENT category, while the rest of the article is based on self-published sources, so In my view, she doesn't pass. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see that as a conflict at all. That's like having someone who enjoys bananas not allowed to comment because she created an article about bananas. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Can't say that for sure. An editor I have a lot of respect for is a connoisseur of beer, but can easily get agitated when editing articles about his favourite brew. YMMV. OTOH, it seems here that we have two fellow activists who share a viewpoint, so one creates an article as a soapbox for the other one because the occasion arose after a stunt protest. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

support redirect as proposed I wont re-iderate the one event/ in the news issue which is text book case of not satisfying wiki's notability requirements for now. 94.175.88.108 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

oppose redirect as proposed DePape's action was the first of its kind, it seems. Perhaps at some time the incident will lose its notability, but for now she certainly has made a significant impact; a lightning rod for concerns. Her actions and the official reactions illustrate the democratic values of a free society DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Photo?

Do we have a photo of this stunning Canadian beauty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iheartbrigette (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice that in the external links section there are links to photos list. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Occupation: Student

Is Brigette DePape currently a student? If so, she deserves to have that as her current occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.verboomen (talk • contribs) 21:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

All reports I’ve seen list her as having graduated. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete Theater Section

This is not important nor notable. I received a 'vandalism' warning for deleting this section. It is arguable whether this page should even exist at all. 76.10.147.89 (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Facts don't need to be notable, they need to be verifiable. DigitalC (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, this shows that she has done other things of interest in her life, beyond raising a sign. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete?

Im wondering if there should be a deletion discussion for the sake of having one considering how many people are against merger and how many question the notability of this article. Of course id think its likely to get no consensus...... But at least it would end the notability discussion once and for all for now 94.175.88.108 (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't delete - I follow Canadian politics pretty closely in news and social media. Brigette DePape's popularity and mentions are still strong, even a month after Senate protest. Everett (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't delete - as a Canadian I can vouche that she is still a notable figure in Canada. She may not have a household name, but almost any Canadian will know who you are talking about when you mention "That girl who held up the sign in parliament". The image of her holding the sign is also still widespread and recognizable to many, though I don't see it in this article. 184.175.5.199 (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment- I believe the concern for notability in this case deals with WP:People notable for only one event.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC))

Delete - Why does this person have her own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.57.162 (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

She is just a foolish trouble maker that broke the rules that she had agreed to when taking the job of a parliamentary page.

She may be notable for being a liar, but that is about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.204.160.147 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Brigette DePape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606121316/http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110603/throne-speech-protester-110503 to http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110603/throne-speech-protester-110503/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612054352/http://www.stopharperfund.ca/ to http://www.stopharperfund.ca/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130905194541/http://www.tedxyouthottawa.org/?page_id=13 to http://www.tedxyouthottawa.org/?page_id=13
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100929172742/http://www.tedxyouthottawa.org/?page_id=2 to http://www.tedxyouthottawa.org/?page_id=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612054352/http://www.stopharperfund.ca/ to http://www.stopharperfund.ca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)