Deletion of Sarah Larson (3rd nomination)

Comment: Vast majority of sources (including the added ones) are either unreliable/tabloid, or mainly about George Clooney.  This looks like a  and/or  situation to me.  The list of people who don't get Wikipedia articles includes most game show contestants, most girlfriends of celebrities, most Vegas cocktail waitresses, and most failed models.  Being the combination of all four doesn't add up to anything more
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: The subject seems notable by virtue of the numerous independent sources which comment upon her.  The previous discussion was a clear keep and this nomination just seems to be a blatant  contrary to our |editing policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: as per . Notability is not inherited, even from movie stars
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: She wouldn't be here if she hadn't dated Clooney. WAGs are non-notable unless they established notability for themselves, which Larson clearly hasn't. Not notable per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: I've added multiple additional citations. The subject meets  through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including such media as ''People'' magazine, ''Us Weekly'', ''The Sun'', the ''Las Vegas Review-Journal'' and the ''Daily Mail'', among others. Note that the sources I've added are articles about ''her'', not articles about Clooney that mention her in passing. Some of it is a little tabloidy, sure, but not completely or irredeemably so. I also re-added the part about her being named to ''People'' mag's "100 Most Beautiful" list, which had been removed just prior to the start of this AfD, and from what I can tell from the sources, represents some of her notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I was going to close this; however, as I read the article and the sources, checked the http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Sarah_Larson page view stats, read the comments, did a bit of checking and found a more recent book source which discussed her, I was swayed toward keep. I may not be interested in this person, but clearly a lot of people are. We personally, either as individuals or as small cliques of Wikipedia editors, do not determine notability - we have agreed to let reliable sources do that, and the sources indicate some notability for this person under our guidelines. However, the delete !votes significantly outweighed the keeps, and while some were not on-policy ("per nom" or variations of ), others were citing  or making good points. While the keep comments were also making good points and citing GNG, I wasn't sure there was enough consensus for a keep. I didn't want to close this as a delete, as I feel that would be inappropriate. Nor did I want to close either as no consensus or keep, as I felt I might be introducing a upervote. So I am not closing, but adding my opinion, and hoping to assist another closer to mark this as No consensus or even keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:S)

Comment: Numerous sources often comment on the people whom celebrities' date; that doesn't mean that they merit articles. That's goes directly to otability, and has nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per nom and Nightscream's comments above.  While we can't be judgmental about what a famous person does, since 2009 (or so) we have been more discriminating about having |properly sourced BLPs. The sources cited in the past AfDs are |not reliable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:RS)