Deletion of Rachelle Waterman

Comment: another example of news being conflated with an encyclopedic topic by those who blindly use news sources and ghits to determine the subject notability without regard to other factors, like the old 15 minutes of fame rule and other points concerning  raised at 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO)

Comment: per my well-explained reasoning on the talk pages of . These stories all belong in Wikinews, putting them in an encyclopedia is inappropriate as they have no lasting historical impact
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Weak keep'''''(changed per rereading of  and , "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" section 10: "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article.")'' For 10,000 Google hits, 2 years plus of news coverage, early example of accused blogging about experiences. Acquittal does argue against keeping
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOT)