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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Daya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Some minor trade coverage. Potentially notable. Promotional. scope_creep^Talk 11:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While the exact nature of notability and reliability can be discussed, there are quite a few reliable sources that are mentioned in the aforementioned article (such as by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, The Globe and Mail, and others) that establish WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Perhpas, more sources can be included to strengthen notability? Also, do not see how it is promotional. Momer313 (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only possibly good source is the Globe and Mail article, but it's an interview (see ProQuest 2382427887). The other coverage is just interviews or passing mentions in the context of cases she's been involved in. Her cookbook is self-published, as is Law Girl's Bump in the Road. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:PROMO piece fails WP:SIGCOV. KidAd talk 17:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Basically echoing both AleatoryPonderings & KidAd, just like AP already stated above, following a google search most sources observed are interviews thus aren’t independent of the subject, hence doesn’t do much for WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with others, this reads like promo material for the subject. The gist of the article seems to be that she's filed some lawsuits, given some interviews, and published a book, none of which are particularly notable and a standard that a lot of lawyers could meet. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She's a personal injury lawyer that likes to cook. There are a few dozen of these types of lawyers that advertise on TV in the Toronto area alone, so she is one of many. Has she won any awards ? I fail to see how she's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2020 (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.