Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah Sinclair

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 delete‎. czar 17:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Sinclair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There doesn't seem to be enough independent, secondary sources that discuss Sinclair in depth. Badbluebus (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Law, and Canada. Badbluebus (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No coverage of this individual in news media, simply being a subject matter expert in court cases isn't quite enough without coverage discussing the individual. Sourcing now is largely to court cases. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sounds promotional more than anything, not to mention tagged for COI. Not sure what makes her worthy of an article as opposed to others in her occupation. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and comments.Go4thProsper (talk) 17:05, 28 December 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.