Deletion of Jessica Rodriguez (2nd nomination)

Comment: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Jessica+Rodriguez%22+holmes&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Multiple http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Jessica+Rodriguez%22+scientology&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 News http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Jessica+feshbach%22+&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 sources, also http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22jessica+feshbach%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq= Additional http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22jessica+rodriguez%22+holmes&btnG=Search web http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22jessica+rodriguez%22+scientology&btnG=Search sources, a couple http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22jessica+rodriguez%22+scientology&btnG=Search academic sources, and a http://books.google.com/books?q=jessica+rodriguez+scientology&btnG=Search+Books book source. Whether or not the external links to news sources are currently live and available online is irrelevant, the question for those is |verifiability, and these can be verified via news database archives
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Enough established sources to satisfy notability; I agree with Cirt that "link rot" is irrelevant; |Assume good faith applies that the links at one time existed and if someone wants to put in the effort they can probably replace the links with something from Archive.org, anyway. The fact the nominator interprets one of the sources as a "slam piece" is irrelevant per  and  as it's not our place to judge the nature of the source, only whether the source is real and from a reliable source. Of course, with an article like this  must be adhered to, but I don't immediately see anything here that runs afoul of that policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:FAITH||WP:NPOV||WP:NOR||WP:BLP)