Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kona Williams
I found this through the science deletion sorting list, but as a working pathologist the appropriate notability standard for her is , not , so the nomination remark about citations is irrelevant. Searching news for her name finds plenty of coverage, some of the general-interest who-is-this-person type (e.g. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/one-on-one-with-markus-kona-williams-1.4913355 on top of the coverage we already have) but also for her work on investigating deaths of indigenous people https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/police-case-reviews-1.5233394 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/mmiwg-report-missed-chance-to-change-how-deaths-are-investigated-says-indigenous-forensic-pathologist-1.5167987 and as an examiner in the Murder of Tess Richey (despite the fact that somehow our Richey article doesn't actually mention her; for coverage see e.g. https://www.thesudburystar.com/news/local-news/forensic-pathologist-who-examined-tess-richeys-body-testifies-at-murder-trial). So there's also no issue with , nor with the nominator's suggestion that being the first indigenous pathologist is somehow unworthy of notability (despite worthiness not being relevant for GNG), because she has plenty of other accomplishments to be notable for
— User:David, 06:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:BIO1E (Wikipedia:Notability)