Deletion of Lisa Littman

Comment: This is pointless. She's thoroughly disliked, yet there are sufficient sources for notability. Everyone voting delete here needs to take a good hard think about what they're doing — and then reconsider how they best can improve the article instead of violating 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINTY)

Comment: each article per nom; Littman is  and non-notable, as outlined by others above, and RGOD is unsupportable to  standards; if the latter article is kept, moving to a title with "...controversy" in the name might help, but because "all biomedical information ... in '''any''' Wikipedia article" needs to meet MEDRS, it'd still be hard to say much about it beyond that it's unsupported. (Btw, regarding "it wouldn't do to lose the RfC on the talk page", it's always seemed a bit odd to me that WP deletes talk pages in cases like this; Wiktionary, for example, doesn't
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:MEDRS)

Comment: The subject is clearly notable under general notability per , as established by at least the following list of |reliable sources that discuss Littman and/or ROGD. In previous talk page discussions, articles about the subject in established media sources such as ''The Economist'' and ''The Wall Street Journal'' have been discounted by editors who count only  in establishing notability; in fact, citations to sources that pass muster under  but not under  have been systematically removed from the article more than once. Click to expand the collapsed lists of sources establishing |general notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:MEDRS||WP:RS||WP:MEDRS||WP:N||WP:reliable sources)

Comment: This seems to be a textbook example of : Asides from a single event that received some coverage from socially conservative sources (which has since petered down) there is very little else that can be found on Littman. If you check her publications, she hasn't published on a journal with an impact factor over 4. She is an nontenured assistant professor and there is nothing else she is notable for. If we ignore this single event and focus on general notability will we be giving every nondiscrepit Assistant Professor a Wiki page, I know quite a few with Nature and Science publications, one of them was even invited to some conference with the Gates Foundation. It's very hard to argue that other professors with blockbuster papers shouldn't get their own page when they far outstrip Littman by all Wikipedia:Notability (academics)|Criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: As noted, the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria article currently exists. It does not yet have its own AfD page. '''Instead, the AfD tag for the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria page currently points to this one.''' To me, this is not ideal since editors will have different reasons for why the Lisa Littman article should not exist and why the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria article should not exist. Even if the Lisa Littman article is deleted, the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria article might still exist because there is no onsensus here to delete it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)