Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avvy Go

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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avvy Go[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Little in the way of notability. Article seems to promote legal clinic. scope_creep (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and BIO after searching for RSes and most of them are passing mentions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see her quoted in the press many, many times. I also counted six good Google Books references on the first page of results. She is a clear keep.198.58.162.200 (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was adding references and came across this Law Society of Upper Canada congratulations page for her Order of Ontario Award. That's a significant award per WP:ANYBIO, and let's not forget that she is also being recognized on that page as a significant lawyer by the Law Society of Upper Canada (i.e. Ontario), established 230 years ago in 1797. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Order of Ontario seals it for me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ditto, along with along her other distinctions.--Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sheer volume of incidental mentions by national level publications get her over the WP:GNG bar. --LauraHale (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been updated quite drastically in the last couple of days, and particularly last night. The order of ontario seems to be one of the highest civilian orders, which makes her notable. Speedy Close scope_creep (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as the nominator, are you saying you withdraw the nomination? That might be appropriate.198.58.162.200 (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Good grief, the second highest honour in the country has been bestowed upon this woman and her notability is questioned. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not even attempted. SusunW (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Missed the signature earlier. scope_creep (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Again, WP:BEFORE was clearly not attempted. Not only are there numerous sources but the Order of Ontario is a significant honour, the highest in Ontario. This sort of deletion nomination is just plain lazy. freshacconci (✉) 16:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is clearly notable and passes GNG even if we don't consider her Order of Ontario, which we do. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, though see little benefit of the infobox.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG easily. Montanabw^(talk) 02:53, 25 March 2017 (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.