Deletion of Sarah A. Matthews

Comment: per nom and . NN, apparent |autobiography whose now-blocked creator justifies with 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:AUTO||WP:OSE)

Comment: as the work of now-blocked trolls.  The subject may satisfy |general notability; in my opinion, the subject probably is notable, but that need not be considered.  Even if the article appears to be correct and even if the subject is notable, its veracity is suspect because it was written by Internet troll|trolls
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I am undecided about notability at this time, but I want to say that the interpretation of  by SarahAMatthews1 above is spurious. The language about appointments refers to appointment to a vacant legislative seat. Example: Alex Padilla was recently appointed to fill the remainder of Kamala Harris' term when she became vice president. This guideline ''does not apply'' to appointed legislative aides or White House aides or their equivalents in other countries. In 13+ years of editing, I have ''never'' seen this guideline applied this way
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: Per nom. Fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPOL)

Comment: per foregoing rationales and per nom statement, though / editing are not in and of themselves deletion rationales to me. Subject does not meet notability requirements despite creator's spurious and misguided arguments to the contrary. The coverage is not sufficient. I came here from the special:permalink/1006651839#Comments_by_Robert_McClenon|ANI thread and decided to see for myself. They do '' not'' meet NPOL, GNG, or ANYBIO. Britishfinance puts it well, above. Though Tobias has wisely  precluded deleting under  at the ANI thread, I feel this page ''does'' meet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:PAID||WP:CSD)

Comment: I’m not seeing WP:GNG here. The COI editing is also on the  level
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:DYNAMITE)

Comment: Passing mentions as would be expected from her job (per ), but no  by a proper independent quality  on her.  The article and construction is , and her piece on her resignation (which I removed), is  and . Using Wikipedia to build her notability, however, it should be the other way around
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL||WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS||WP:UPE||WP:PROMO||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: per all above — fails  and  — not a member of a legislative body, neither elected nor confirmed cabinet appointment. I'm not a pseudonymous editor. Just happened upon this over at ANI, next to a discussion I'd initiated there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPOL)