Deletion of Saarah Hameed Ahmed (2nd nomination)

Comment: per reason given in previous AfD. The sources (karnatakamuslim.com, australianmuslimtimes.com, islamicvoice.com, iinanews.org, mvslim.com) which seemingly make her appear pass GNG are not "independent" because they promote a specific religion and their coverage of the subject for being associated with this religion should not be considered as independent. The currentaffairsonline.in is not even 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: as , fails  (see below for disputed claims of being the "first") and undisclosed paid editing. I deliberated over this for a while but I do not see a claim of notability nor that this is something "groundbreaking
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:V)

Comment: Does not fail . Article could use clean up and expansion, not deletion per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ATD)

Comment: Unquestioned coverage in third party sources, more than adequate indicia of notability, significant ground-breaking role. '''Snow keep''', this is a y nom and should not have been made
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: The article subject passes  because of all the sources mentioned above. Whoever created the article, whether a disclosed paid editor or not, does not keep the subject from being notable or from passing GNG. I agree with the Drover's Wife
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)