Deletion of Lindy West

Comment: and speedy close per . Half a glance at the sources already listed in the article shows West meets the basic criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people) several times over: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." ''Why'' are they notable? There is no "why" in . If they have the coverage, they meet the criteria, and we're done here. If you scroll down from there, you'll see "Additional criteria" such as "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times" which would allow the article to be kept even though they didn't meet . But West already meets the basic criteria so the additional criteria are moot.It's quite true that for this stub to become a Good Article, the lead ought to say why West is notable, which you can glean from reading the many news articles about her (she has been the focus of much controversy about Rape culture|rape jokes, fat shaming, hipster racism, and other topics, beyond being an mere journalist). But that's not a reason for deletion, per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:BASIC||WP:BASIC||WP:SURMOUNTABLE)

Comment: No guideline-based reason to delete has been presented. The subject meets  per sources listed in this discussion, specifically http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100161714/are-women-on-average-as-funny-as-men-who-cares/, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10109903/Sadly-it-helps-to-be-hot-if-youre-a-feminist.html, http://seattletimes.com/html/nicolebrodeur/2021322952_nicole30xml.html, http://www.vice.com/read/lindy-west-is-leaving-jezebel-but-she-still-hates-rape-905 (note that the first of these is acceptable per  as the author is a professional with the Telegraph
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:NEWSBLOG)

Comment: Subject of the article meets  and . There are multiple independent  |reliable sources that established the subject |notability. “Why is she notable?” Is not a good rationale to me. However  have answered that question that {{tq|A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject}}. In addition, the condescending tone such as {{tq|You had better start to get wise, quick.}} And {{tq|you are not going to be on Wikipedia for much longer}} By {{User5|Tiptoethrutheminefield}}  to {{user|Dennis Bratland}} is unacceptable if an editor is really OTHERE|here to build an encyclopedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BASIC||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:GNG||WP:NOTHERE)