Deletion of Maia Weinstock

Comment: insufficiently |notable to merit an encyclopaedia article, online or elsewhere
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per . Has not received significant coverage outside of one event
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: It cannot be excluded under  for 2 reasons.  The first is that  reads requires that 3 conditions be met, and the second is: "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." I assert that this young science write is unlikely to remain "low profile". I assert this with great confidence because this 2015 Supreme-Court-Lego media spike is the second such even in her career. The first was a burst of publicity around getting women better represented on WP in 2013. Both topics sparked media coverage not just in the U.S., but in the Eastern and southern hemispheres. In major news sources easily found by typing her name into a google news search.   http://www.news.com.au/technology/brown-universitys-anne-fausto-sterling-and-maia-weinstock-are-trying-to-solve-wikipedias-woman-problem/story-e6frfro0-1226741354147
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The major-media attention for her Lego judges would clearly and obviously be enough for , except only for the facts that it's |recent and |only a single event. But I think there's enough attention for her past works as well (examples: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/10/11/brown_wikipedia_edit_a_thon_reaches_out_to_woman_wiki_editors_raises_awareness.html an edit-a-thon in Slate; http://www.mystatesman.com/weblogs/austin-scoop/2014/sep/15/tuesdays-pick-go-ahead-and-do-it/ an art exhibit that she curated in the Austin American-Statesman) to avoid those issues and keep the article. As for some of the earlier comments: it's very difficult to treat as unbiased the opinion of an editor who characterizes Obama's election as an instance of tokenism (there's a different -ism that I think clearly applies to that comment) and we have the usual "it's about an editor of Wikipedia so therefore it's automatically not notable" reactions that, while understandable as a mechanism for preventing us from focusing on our own navels, are not based in policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BIO1E)

Comment: I have no idea of how  applies. Two significant events are involved and not one. However, subject of the article clearly meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BASIC)