Deletion of Linda Hunter Adams

Comment: Combining the WP:PROF criteria with GNG, we have someone who has done substantial academic work but also work with non-profit organizations (e.g. Sons of the Utah Pioneers).  Taken in total, this meets  as we have multiple sources from independent, third party publications. As in other discussions, just because a person may not meet all of a particular SNG criteria, that does not trump GNG, so if that is met, a person qualifies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: Fails  and . My concerns with the sources have already been articulated by {{u|Nsk92}}. There coverage is what I call trivial and the ones where the coverage is somewhat substantial are not independent sources. Accordingly, the significant coverage required is missing here. In fact, I looked up on Newspapers.com and wasn't able to find anything significant either. I'm not convinced about  either - no significant work, or highest post in academia. The closest claim is the one about being an editor of the journal, but the  criterion requires one to be an "editor-in-chief". Considering the lack of coverage in independent sources, I will go with a delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: Not enough of significance to pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per Agricola. I am not seeing anything even remotely close to passing GNG here, not to mention . There is just one ref in the article, to a news bulletin from the subject's own institution
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)