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.
Keep, clearly notable and the sourcing seems sufficient - I see nothing in the prior nomination that "promised better sourcing".
Jooojay (
talk)
19:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)reply
How is she "clearly notable"? Where is the significant, in-depth coverage of her? Because what she does is admirable doesn't mean she "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Please provide some links to show she meets GNG.
—МандичкаYO 😜
00:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
What exactly are you looking for that is better? The cited sources include The NY Times, NY Post, Huffington Post and etc... Nothing was promised to change, this seems like an unnecessary nomination.
Jooojay (
talk)
02:07, 25 October 2015 (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.