Deletion of Stephanie Seneff

Comment: Article is appropriately sourced for a . We can't violate  and remove the fact that most of the subject's notability comes from controversial publications. Sources such as blogs.discovermagazine.com are not  sources even though they have the term blog in the name. They are selected contributors for the website as opposed to an open blog anyone can post. www.sciencebasedmedicine.org is a recognized reputable source for dealing with fringe subjects and is also appropriate per SPS. Both BLP and  policies are at play here, so editors need to take care in upholding both
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGEBLP||WP:BLP||WP:SPS||WP:BLPSPS||WP:PSCI)

Comment: Since I created the article, a fair amount of additional negative material has been added cited to questionable sources (e.g. the blogs above). Nevertheless, there actually is one reliable independent source in the article now: the Washington Post (reference 3). Other reliable sources include http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-04-25/lifestyle/sns-rt-us-roundup-health-studybre93o13h-20130425_1_glyphosate-biotech-crops-roundup Chicago Tribune, http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/08/sunny-side-up-in-defense-of-eggs/261600/ The Atlantic, and this admittedly brief article in the Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/research-gone-wild-the-future-of-autism. I think, though, that the strongest argument for Seneff's notability comes from her h-index, which, according to Google Scholar, is 48. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=author%3A%22Seneff%2C+Stephanie%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C11&as_sdtp= (Note that I used https://www.mat.unical.it/ianni/wiki/ScholarHIndexCalculator this tool on Chrome to calculate her h-index.) I think an h-index this high is enough to meet #C1 in almost any field, including computer science (her actual area of expertise). Given all this, I think the article should be kept, but having created it I do not consider myself unbiased enough to vote as to whether it should be deleted or not
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: She clearly passes #C1 for her computer science publications but the problem is that that's mostly not what the article is about. Instead, it's focused on her recent fringe bandwagon anti-vaccine anti-GMO anti-acetaminophen autism scare pieces. There's enough coverage of that part that she might be notable under , and the self-published sources look like they pass the recognized expert test, but that's why my keep is weak
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)