Deletion of Edith Jordan Gardner

Comment: as I have already explained on the talk page of the article, on the difference of the tens of thousands of other dedicated American High School teachers, this teacher, who was also active in the League of Women Voters, was included in "Binheim, Max; Elvin, Charles A (1928). Women of the West; a series of biographical sketches of living eminent women in the eleven western states of the United States of America", and in that book there are just few hundreds of women. Moreover as I told above, how many times in the 1910s when a MAN died, the news was reported in relation to the WOMAN in his life? "Fiance of Miss Jordan is found dead in room", she was so much more notable than her fiance, that she is the one in the head title of the newspaper reporting his death... I think enough for  here. And I also improved the article with more reliable and independent sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Regardless of some editors' beliefs that society ladies should not be notable, or that women who marry and are forced from their jobs for being married should lose any notability they once had, the referencing of the article (including a major newspaper obituary and an entry in a major biographical dictionary) makes clear that she does pass . The nomination statement itself is a bit of a giveaway; the nominator has clearly read the obituary, which explicitly states "she was an outstanding person in her own right", and details her teaching and later lecturing career, but instead falsely pretends that the only thing it says about her is her presence at an event and inserts the opinion (unjustified by any reading of GNG) that this is not something worthy of notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Well, there seems to be consensus here that this person meets the ; that is, in case anyone has forgotten, just a guideline. As it tells us, "significant coverage |in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". For a person to have a Wikipedia article, he or she needs to have actually done something of some significant interest or importance, unlike this person, who lived a fairly ordinary and uninteresting life typical of a person in her social position at the time. I suggest again that of the fairly limited coverage she received, a good part at least is due to her very notable father. To the "keep" !voters: if she is so significant, where is the coverage of her in modern reliable sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)