Deletion of Louisa Bertman

Comment: There are certainly more sources, but having a quick read of  is not encouraging. It is my personal opinion that while she might meet , she does not meet the more stringent criteria for professional artists
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTIST||WP:BASIC)

Comment: Well what it says under  is that someone is "presumed" notable.  It doesn't mean she is notable.  Kind of like presumed innocent is not the same as innocent.  That is what the other criteria are for.  Anyway, I think this is a fail of --there's only one in-depth source, and it's a local newspaper.  By that standard, we could add 100s of people to WP every day, just for appearing in the local paper.  BTW thanks for your edits on the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:BASIC)

Comment: is my vote, but No Consensus could be a valid close. The nom and ditto to delete have asserted  and fancruft, but given no examples that violate that rule. "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always ''assume the editor is trying to do the right thing''-links to AGF-. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." Not only is giving no valid rationale invalid under , it is difficult for Keep voters to respond to; I cannot even begin to understand what they could possibly find that fits those two essays, but as it stands now, the only reply would be itself a bald assertion with no facts. Quite honestly, I can come to no other conclusion other than they simply DONTLIKE so much that they believe facts in favor of notability (a dozen celebrity subjects and a score of celebrity patrons) to be fancruft and COI. Furthermore, voters themselves have been prudent enough to classify their votes as not firm. This AfD might have been better to close No Consensus rather than relisting. #Deletion discussion and  CONSENSUS: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:DEL||WP:DEL||WP:ROUGH)

Comment: Art Nouveau and Boston Globe constitute significant coverage in reliable independent sources.  Subject therefore passes |the general notability guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The exact wording is 'A person who fails to meet these additional criteria '''may still be notable''' under Wikipedia:Notability.' (Bolding in original) I think that changes my opinion - but I'm going to go and have a more thorough read of asic before I go sticking my oar back in again! ^_
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B)