Deletion of Esther Earl

Comment: From a nom that's been putting a lot of articles up for AfD, this is a staggeringly bad nomination.  There are good references from the ''Boston Globe,'' the ''Daily Mail,'' ABC News, ''USA Today'', the ''Washington Post, Parade'' magazine -- major and reliable sources, many of which describe the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires. Moreover ...(1) Exactly where in deletion policy are being a "sensitive" article or breaking the "WP social contract" (whatever the heck that's supposed to mean) set forth as valid deletion grounds?(2) Since the article doesn't have a history of being created, deleted and recreated, what grounds does the nom have for a salting recommendation?(3) Since damn near everything in the article is a direct statement supported by an inline citation, what grounds is there for trimming all that much?  (That being, by the bye, a content dispute that's inappropriate for AfD anyway)(4) This wouldn't make it into the Britannica?  No kidding; was the nom unaware that the Britannica has less than a ''hundredth'' as many articles as Wikipedia?One of the stronger  nominations I've ever seen at AfD, and one which warrants review of the nom's AfD history
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)