Deletion of Suzannah Lipscomb

Comment: subject meets |notability requirements for stand alone article. Nomination is flawed for it seeks deletion in preference to the articles published content, to wit: |not liking it is not a valid reason to delete;  applies—a strong collaboration is currently in progress, to that end! In my opinion, a |snow close is warranted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:SOFIXIT||WP:SNOW)

Comment: Does not pass rof#C1 on GS cites, an h-index of 3!. Does not make  yet as a pop history presenter. Too early
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:GNG)

Comment: Not notable under , just as David E says, but notable under both  and the GNG.  The inherent quality of the work is irrelevant to , and very certainly not to the GNG, just that it be widely read and commented on
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: Primarily because the subject passes  '''Criterion 1''' (has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions) by virtue of having been the presenter of multiple television series/programs for notable British broadcasting companies, BBC, ITV, Channel 5 (UK)|Channel 5 (plus the National Geographic Channel) I have included references to reviews (not simple TV listings) for three of these programs in ''The Independent'' and ''Daily Telegraph''. The Clive James review in the ''Daily Telegraph'' devotes at least a paragraph to her. I have also included as a reference an article devoted to her—not just an interview—in the ''Oxford Times'' which verifies a fair amount of the biographical information. She could even pass  '''Criterion 3''' (is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association) via her election as a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and '''Criterion 7''' (has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, e.g. if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area). There is ample evidence of this, the dismissive description of her as "the go-to person" in the popular press above merely supports this. Note also that the specialised criteria at  and  are '''alternatives''' to passing  and only require '''one''' of the criteria to be met—not all of them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENTERTAINER||WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: I'm not convinced that FRHistSoc is enough for  — their eligibility requirements look like you only need to be a published history author for that, rather than the more distinguished academic level that criterion is looking for. But the multiple in-depth published reviews of her television and book works are enough for 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: the subject has appeared on several documentary TV shows, including BBC Four and National Geographic, which would allow her to pass  alone, although she fails .  Even assuming her life has been covered in the ''Daily Mirror'', a mention in a non-reliable source does not taint an otherwise notable person (see Woody Allen and Paloma Picasso in the ''New York Post''). I'm leaning to a keep, but would prefer better sourcing about the subject. Userfication is another option
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR||WP:PROF)

Comment: Certainly a fair number of the sources are underwhelming in how much coverage they give the subject, but they are easily numerous and substantial enough on the whole that the article passes GNG, and BIO considerations,  with ease.  The article has issues, but they can be resolved with |a little time and patience and a more collaborative approach
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state (WP:NOTIMELIMIT)

Comment: Seems to pass  and . The subject has made several contributions to literature, television, print media, etc, which would be fine for an encyclopedia article. There are other issues going on with this page, which have been discussed at length elsewhere. I'm not sure about the rationale for nominating this, and can't help thinking it's all just part of the ongoing dispute involving this topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO)