Deletion of Alanna Devine

Comment: My initial research shows Devine has been recognized as an expert by multiple independent and reliable sources over time, e.g. https://montrealgazette.com/news/a-reputation-for-cruelty ''Montreal Gazette'' 2009, https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/stricter-animal-welfare-laws-in-quebec-can-t-come-soon-enough-1.701801 ''CTV News'' 2011, https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/horrific-conditions-at-quebec-fur-farm-spca-1.1959940 ''CTV News'' 2014, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-bill-calls-animals-sentient-beings-and-includes-jail-time-for-cruelty/article24832028/ ''The Globe and Mail'' 2015, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37526015 ''BBC News'' 2016, https://globalnews.ca/news/2493805/verdun-woman-furious-over-slow-raccoon-rescue/ ''Global News'' 2016, https://globalnews.ca/news/3101348/montreal-pit-bull-ban-quebec-court-of-appeal-reinstates-bylaw/ ''Global News'' 2016, so there appears to be sufficient coverage of Devine as an expert per , i.e. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and the essay , which reasons, "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability," and "The material provided by the interviewee may be ... secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:INTERVIEW)

Comment: Does not meet . Per Bearcat, many references do not meet . The many independent, secondary sources that merely mention the subject are not about the subject, and do not constitute 'significant coverage' as required by 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:BASIC)

Comment: The references present here do ''not'' "strongly" indicate that the article meets GNG. The overwhelming majority of the footnotes are |primary sources that are not support for notability, such as staff profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations and video clips of her speaking — and the few sources that are actually to real notability-supporting media are not coverage ''about'' her, but coverage which merely namechecks her as a giver of soundbite in an article whose core subject is somebody or something else. That's not how you get a person over : the sources have to be ''media'' coverage which has her as its ''subject'', not just any page you can find on the web that happens to have her name in it. The notability test is not "she did stuff", it's "she got ''media'' coverage ''about'' the stuff she did" — and none of the sources here are showing that she's passed that test
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:GNG)