This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Canada. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Canada|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Canada. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
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.
Delete - WP:NOR One-sentence article that tells us the Realtors Association of Edmonton exists, and the only source is the Association itself. Also a direct External Link to the association. — Maile (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you failed to check for previous organization names, and the organization is very easy to find cited in independent articles, see below. Please do your due diligence properly.
I am very well aware that there have been trivial mentions of this organization in reliable sources. Those do not count towards notability, though. Organizations must have received significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources to be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. As I mentioned above, the only possible "significant coverage" is in a non-independent publication. CFA💬16:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not what a due diligence check needs, we need extensive articles about this subject, not name drops. I would not even mention these in my search results, these are not helpful to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: They give out awards [1], and act as a professional association, but there is very little coverage about the association itself. Not meeting notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (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.
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.
Article about a smalltown performing arts theatre, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for theatres. As always, theatres are not all automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them in media and books -- but this is referenced entirely to the theatre's own self-published content about itself on its own primary source website, which is not support for notability, and cites absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy sourcing at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
bearcat is going through articles I have made and deleting all of them after they passed approvals, he is on an abuse of power. Jp3333 (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat is not "stalking" you, Bearcat is noticing articles that you incorrectly filed in bad places (such as a "Port Perry" category that doesn't even exist on this page) through his work with the "cleaning up categorization errors" queue, and cleaning them up for the categorization errors, and then nominating them for deletion because I'm noticing that they're also not properly sourced at all in the process of cleaning up the categorization errors. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A directory entry published by the government is not a WP:GNG-building third party source, and per WP:ORGDEPTH something like this does not get into Wikipedia just because it has a some coverage in minor community hyperlocals like Durham Region or Clarington This Week — and Durham Region is still functionally just suburbs of Toronto, so the Toronto Star is still fundamentally local coverage rather than evidence of wider recognition. So two hits in the Toronto Star counts for something, but it doesn't count for enough by itself, and nothing else in that list is good enough either. We would have to see evidence that it was widely recognized with coverage beyond the GTA, like from The Globe and Mail or the National Post or the Ottawa Citizen or the Montreal Gazette, because things of purely local significance require more than just a handful of purely local coverage. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the additional sources and the designation as a national historic site are sufficient evidence of notability in my view. Mojo Hand(talk)19:17, 7 August 2024 (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.
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.
Article about a small-town municipal recreation centre, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for local buildings. As always, arenas are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show passage of WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them in media -- but this is referenced entirely to the self-published websites of entities directly affiliated with the venue -- the town government, the local minor hockey league, the local junior hockey team and a local real estate agent -- with not even one hit of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i mean you could just not be a nerd and just allow it lol, those are valid sources unfortunately you are not going to find scholarly articles on a arena Jp3333 (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works. It isn't our job to keep an article about everything that exists, even if we have to rely on sourcing self-published by directly affiliated entities to do it — our job is to keep articles about things that have third-party journalistic and scholarly coverage to establish that they're notable, and to not keep articles about things that don't. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you just made that up, "Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge", "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales" so keep going on your powertrip. Jp3333 (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see sigcov of this local arena here. I think it probably exists somewhere in a newspaper archive, so someone might be able to make an article on this topic, but I don't think we're going to turn it up during this AfD, if ever. Here's the two local news websites: [3], [4]. They're not great. I've just nominated a related article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scugog Community Recreation Centre. -- asilvering (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has anyone given consideration to enhancing the Uxbridge, Ontario article with a partial merge/redirect? That article is not particularly well organised, but coverage of this Arena could fit in the Attractions section, providing something of an WP:ATD. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relising to consider suggestion of a possible redirect or merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!18:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uxbridge, Ontario#Attractions. Thanks to AllyD for the suggestion, which in hindsight is obvious. Since there doesn't appear to be any possibility this article will be kept outright, I'll go ahead and merge the content into that article now, so that it's mentioned there. -- asilvering (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2024 (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.
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.
Fails WP:GNG. Mostly self-authored by the subject (User:Ideation269), who acknowledges himself on the talk page that most of this information is unverifiable. Whatever sources are provided are routine, and not independent sigcov. Jdcooper (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Weak Delete. Source assessment by WomenArtistUpdates is totally correct. The glenbow.org dead link source is archived at [5] and I don't find the name "Collett" in it. The estellesalata.ca dead link source is archived at [6] and is not independent (Estelle Selata is listed as a co-writer of the film) and not significant (only five short sentences). The bfi.org link did load for me, and it is just a directory listing that does not provide significant coverage. I have not been able to find any additional sources. I am saying "weak delete" as finding WP:SIGCOV sources on an artist working in the 1970s and 1980s is always more of a challenge than something more WP:RECENT. Elspea756 (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2024 (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.
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.
Non-notable protest/vanity political party. Was formerly a redirect to its founder/leader, Dominic Cardy, a former New Brunswick New Democrat who was elected to the provincial legislature as a Conservative and later expelled from the Conservative caucus. In 2023 after the federal Conservative Party elected Pierre Poilievre its new leader, Cardy and a small number of disgruntled party members split off and formed their own party, at one time called "Centre Ice Conservatives", later "Centre Ice Canadians", and now registeredeligible to register as the Canadian Future Party. This party got a blip of coverage when it was formed last September, including a hit piece used as a reference here which opines in its first paragraph, "this tiny group of disgruntled politicos has no political future in Canada". It has had not a single bit of coverage since, other than very brief passing mentions in routine coverage of federal politics. The article as it stands is a promotional coat rack leaning on the prestige of a few notable political figures who were associated with the party's predecessor groups before splitting from the CPC, but are not evidently currently involved with it at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the party has just met Elections Canada eligibility requirements which means they have passed the notability threshold and as of July 22, 2024 are listed as an "eligible party" on the Elections Canada website [7]. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given that they have managed to pass Elections Canada's criteria, vanity project or not, they will be as notable as any other minor party soon if they aren't already. Wellington Bay (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When they actually get someone elected, which likely won't happen, then we can have an article about them; "pie in the sky" hopes aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having someone in office is not a requirement for notability. There are numerous articles on parties around the world that have never elected anyone. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite correct. People's Party of Canada also fits the line of having a Wikipedia page despite never gaining a seat and being an offshoot of a disgruntled former parliamentarian.
And if we want to talk about vanity, there are the pamphlets of the Communist Party and Marxist-Lennist attacking each other. Both also have a Wiki and no seats.
Keep: Political Science prof here (I focus partly on Canadian Politics). 1) CFP is an officially recognized federal party; 2) they were created by a number of high profile political actors (not really a vanity party in any meaningful sense - but even if they were this wouldn’t be a reason to delete the article since other vanity parties do have articles, such as the PPC); 3) there are already Wiki articles for significantly smaller parties (including Maverick Party); 4) they are at least noteworthy enough to have been granted a public platform by CPAC and all major news outlets ; 5) we should aim to err on the side of increasing the number of articles for legitimate/recognized parties rather than trying to gatekeep for political purposes (I.e., more access to more information and viable options for voters is beneficial for democracy); 6) because of Canada’s multi-party system, even smaller parties like CFP can play a big part in electoral politics and policy discussions; 7) this party is effectively an attempt to reincarnate the Progressive Conservative Party and revitalize the longstanding Red Tory tradition in Canadian federal politics, so lots of opportunities to link with other existing articles. 2607:F2C0:ECAA:600:3830:E0BB:2920:B8C8 (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:ORGSIG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." Also per WP:ORGCRIT: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - this fails that test, and political parties are not exempt. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Quote; if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject
Comment - well, given that the party has announced it will be running candidates in the upcoming byelections and general election it is likely that it will be receiving more independent, verifiable coverage this year and next, so I ask that if the decision is to not keep the the article, that it be replaced with a redirect to Dominic Cardy so that future editors don't have to start from scratch once there are more sources. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. FYI, a subject isn't judged to be notable by potential future coverage. What sources exist today? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!21:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are, as far as I can find 8-9 news articles that mention the party. The wiki page itself has 10 (2 internal, 8 news). Most minor parties have more sources but have also been around longer (except the Centrist Party which only has 4 sources). The Animal Protection Party of Canada has been around since 2005 but if you exclude links to Elections Canada results it has less sourcing than this wiki page. Looking at formerly active political parties gives a mixed bag with some parties having more references and some having fewer (including, oddly, the Progressive Conservative Party). Wilson (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There was a burst of coverage in Fall 2023 when the party first came along [8], but nothing since... Non-notable party that no one has talked about in almost a year now. The next election in Canada likely isn't until this time next year, so if there's been no coverage, I'm not sure what else will pop up. I've not heard of them in the year since these were published. Oaktree b (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cardy was apparently arrested in Toronto on August 2nd; I've only learned this by visiting their facebook page. You'd expect the leader of a political party getting arrested to make some sort of news, but nothing was reported. This is very much a non-notable party at this point... Oaktree b (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really true at all. There was a national post article about it. Here's the article. It also appeared on a Global News TV report. Saying that it got no coverage at all is not at all fair. 199.243.125.91 (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that article has at most 6 sentences, which isn't enough for notability. There is still a lack of extensive coverage about this person or the political party. Getting arrested isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, it is debatably on the same level of notability for Canada, as small vanity parties like the Forward Party and others are for the United States, there are much less notable US and European Political parties that have been given articles as well. This wouldn't be a conversation if it was an American vanity party that came up, why should it be for a Canadian party of the same level? And given that the party is likely to make a notable impact in upcoming by-elections or the next general it is something that has been notable recently and will get even more attention as time goes on as well. Unova Yellow (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dominic Cardy. I don't see enough coverage separate from him. If this is more than a vanity party, there probably will be coverage during the next election. But that isn't reason to have an article now. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New coverage with more after the candidates are announced tomorrow. It seems the article is going to remain relisted just long enough to get new coverage and negate a primary objection to the article's notability. Wilson (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Will be contesting elections and getting a reasonable amount of media coverage. Seems silly to delete when more coverage is pretty clearly coming in a matter of days as well. 100.0.177.22 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Party launched on August 14th 2024. They had a presser of CPAC, have a candidate, Mark Khoury, for the LaSalle--Émard--Verdun By-election and are in the process of nominating one for Elmwood–Transcona . Lastly, the interim leader had an interview on CBC on the evening of August 14, 2024.
Keep: has also been discussed at some length as Centre Ice Canadians; see the Globe article referenced above. 13:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Discussed at length by multiple national media, on multiple occasions, over the space of a year, registered with elections Canada, running candidates in by-elections, founder is himself notable. 120000 results on google for the exact search phrase (by comparison, I clicked random article twice and got a number theory article with 1200 google results, similarly, the maverick party also has a wiki page and I only got ~8000 results, and much less media coverage).69.173.141.86 (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they are contesting elections and other registered parties have articles.
Keep: If there can be articles for the Marijuana Party, Marxist-Leninists, Centrists, Animal Protection, Veterans Coalition, and Free Party among many others, which all have similarities to this one as being relatively obscure and having no actual representation, there is no reason this article shouldn't exist. They are recognized by Elections Canada and are contesting 2 important byelections that will occur next month. Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the excessive national media coverage I've seen for this part in the last few days (CBC, Globe and Mail, CTV, etc.), as well as the biggest local paper in the country (Star), I'm surprised this is still open. I didn't disagree with the nomination when I saw it last month, but I think events have overtaken the discussion. Perhaps User:Ivanvector can now withdraw this nomination
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.
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 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.
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.
WP:BLP of a judge, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for judges. As always, judges are not all "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but the sole "source" shown here is a (deadlinked) press release self-published by his own employer, which is not a notability-clinching source, and absolutely no GNG-building sourcing has been shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find his name on legal documents, but nothing about him. I found it helps to add "Canada" to the search since his name is fairly common. Lamona (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2024 (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.
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 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.
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.
Fails to meet WP:NORG in meaningful ways. No sign of lasting impact or import beyond the less-than-twenty-sentence Georgia Straight piece and the old radio interview, both from early 2014, I find no real coverage. The only thing I can find from anywhere but the archives of their own website that suggests the group did anything beyond a single cooking demonstration in 2014 was a line in a 2019 blog post about Vegan Congress being an annual event at Emily Carr University. Google and Duck-Duck-Go searches were based on searching for "Vegan Congress" "Emily Carr" to avoid references to an early organization that had Vegan Congress in their name. newspapers.com search from the group's founding date in 2013 to today (for just "vegan congress") found nada. Group's YouTube page delivered 4 videos to its 11 subscribers, all marked as a decade old. Group's web page has been blank for several years now, last non-blank archived version has a single blog post from 2019, and before that, all activity is 2015 or earlier. This is a grou[p that was briefly active, did little of visibility and impact. Nat Gertler (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2024 (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.
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.
WP:BLP of an activist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for activists or writers. As always, people are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about their work in reliable sources independent of themselves. That is, you do not make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to itself as proof that it exists, you make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to coverage and analysis about her writing, such as news articles about her, analytical reviews of her writing in newspapers or magazines or academic journals, and on and so forth -- and you don't make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to the self-published websites of the organizations she has been directly affiliated with, you make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to third-party coverage about it, such as news articles about her, book content about her, and on and so forth. But this is supported entirely by primary sources with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all: 11 of the footnotes are just the publication details of her own writing, and a 12th is just the publication details of an anthology that one of her pieces was in; one is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which would be acceptable for use if the other sourcing around it were better but does not help to get her over GNG in and of itself per WP:INTERVIEWS; another is just a YouTube video clip of her speaking, which she self-published to her own YouTube channel; and all of the rest is content self-published by non-media organizations she's directly connected to -- which means absolutely none of the footnotes are GNG-compliant at all. Again, the notability test doesn't reside in the things she did, it resides in the amount of GNG-worthy coverage she has or hasn't received about the things she did, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Also note that normally I would just have sandboxed this in draftspace as improperly sourced, but another editor has already done that and the creator just immediately unsandboxed it right back into mainspace without actually improving the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of sourcing; there are simply no stories about this individual in RS. This [9] is a student newspaper and this is primary [10]. Most of the sources used in the article aren't useful either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- more Sources got added, below are two more Interviews
Interviews are not WP:GNG-building sourcing. A source has to represent somebody else talking about her in the third person, not her talking about herself or something else in the first. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They pass WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC with multiple cited peer reviewed published papers. Also while yes, some of the refs in the article are interviews, the point of them being discounted for AfDs is contended and the essay WP:INTERVIEW is just that, an essay, not policy or guideline, plus even the essay says that sometimes interviews can add to notability, not outright dismissal of them. Raladic (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that much of her academic work was under her birth name "Sonali Patel", which brings up most of the academic sources and citations, including her work having been cited in several (just pulled up some quickly here [11], [12]) published books, including the latest from just a few months ago by a respected Canadian Professor. It looks like the AfD nomination missed the academic side of the person, and that they are/were going by different names was missed in WP:BEFORE search prior to nominating the article for deletion. Raladic (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2024 (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.
