Deletion of Aisha Harris

Comment: Meets  per above argument. The sources in the article, including the ones presented by 2pou, are reliable enough IMV
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: This article now has enough information and |reliable sources to show that it is independently notable and significant. It passes , as such it should not be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: When looking from a similar perspective of  there are difficulties finding comprehensive coverage from the competition.  However, it seems clear that she meets  Criteria 1, in that she is widely cited by her peers in competing outlets.  If you change the GNews search above into "Aisha Harris wrote" you will get a wide range of outlets and authors that cite her pieces.  Some examples in addition to the Santa Claus piece already covered in the article and discussed here: https://thegrio.com/2012/10/19/white-south-african-rap-duo-accused-of-using-blackface-in-new-video-to-spark-controversy/ from ''theGrio'', https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/uzo-aduba-interview-in-treatment from ''Thrillist'', http://web.archive.org/web/20210610215034/https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/them-amazon-prime-video-jordan-peele-b1829136.html from ''The Independent'', https://www.inverse.com/article/48083-blackkklansman-sorry-to-bother-you-and-the-survivalist-necessity-of-white-voice from ''Inverse (website)|Inverse'', https://decider.com/2021/06/09/is-unbroken-based-on-a-true-story/ from ''Decider'', etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NMEDIA||WP:NJOURNALIST)

Comment: without prejudice against recreation in the future if her sourceability improves. Nine of the eleven footnotes here are |primary sources that are not support for notability at all — staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers, content where she or her father is the bylined ''author'' of coverage about other ''things'', etc. — and another just briefly namechecks her existence as the compiler of a listicle without being ''about her'' to any non-trivial degree, and still comes from her employer anyway. And the one source that actually is both about her and relatively independent of her comes from a |blog rather than a real media outlet, which means it's not a magic key to passing  either. As always, the notability test does not hinge on the ability to verify facts in primary sources, it hinges on the ability to show that she's been the ''subject'' of coverage in |reliable sources (media outlets she isn't directly employed by, books, etc.) ''about'' said facts
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:BLOGS||WP:GNG||WP:RS)