Deletion of Eva Bartlett

Comment: The nomination for this AfD appears to be based on  (exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced). I would say that this is not satisfied. There are sources that back up the statements made. It is not particularly disparaging, and certainly not threatening or entirely negative in tone.  may apply, but that would not be sufficient for deletion. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-eva-bartletts-claims-about-syrian-children Channel 4 News and https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/syrian-war-victims-are-being-recycled-and-al-quds-hospital-was-never-bombed/ Snopes cover the sourcing aspect of the rebuttal (as a side effect, they also cover GNG etc). I would grant that NPOV may be an issue, but that is a clean-up case, not a  deletion reason
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL3||WP:NEGATIVESPIN)