Deletion of Sarah Tuttle

Comment: Sufficient sources are currently in the article to pass .  No idea what state it was in when nominated, but as of now the subject passes GNG easily
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: largely per Ubiquity's !vote above, there is enough here for the subject to pass . Article is of ggod quality to. As jps stated in the comment above  is intended to act to ensure that articles are verifiable and of encyclopedic quality, not to be some bottleneck or gate keeper of content
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: Recent improvements to the article make a plausible case for #C7 "substantial impact outside academia"..."may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media". It's not relevant for this that she's relatively junior, or not as heavily cited as one would expect for a more senior academic. And although the Kavli Fellow is not the kind of fellowship that passes  by itself, it is also indicative of a certain level of prominence. But my keep is still only weak because the sourcing is weak. Most of the sources are by her, quote her, name-drop her with little detail, or are primary. For a non-weak keep of #C7 I'd prefer to see more independent sourcing of her and her role in science communication
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)