Deletion of Danielle Hairston

Comment: clear but inconsistent passing of  and as I see it more citations are being added to the article to bolster its sourcing with 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: In spite of the canvassing, an NPR article, a good chunk of a Der Spiegel article, and a not-insignificant quote in Business Insider, along with https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/social-media-george-floyd-racial-trauma-dsm.html some fairly substantial coverage in Slate, together seem to me to get past . I'm unconvinced by the usefulness of the HuffPost article, considering that it's only listing some of Hairston's Tweets and not offering any further commentary, but we have far worse articles on-wiki than ones with the other sources. AfD is not cleanup, and I'm unconvinced that  is needed here.{{pb}}{{u|138.238.200.2}}, thank you for all of the important work that you do. I think that the article about you meets our criteria, but it's important to understand that |a Wikipedia article isn't necessarily a good thing, and article deletion definitely isn't the same as saying your work is wrong, or that it's not valuable. Those above who've expressed opinions in favour of deletion are doing so on the basis of |our notability policy, but it's important to remember that "notable" isn't the same as "important", or even correlated. Your work is clearly important, the question here is only over whether it's sufficiently notable for Wikipedia - which I think it is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:TNT||WP:FAMOUS||WP:N)

Comment: Looking at references, she seems to pass (but not strongly) 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)