Deletion of Corina Abraham

Comment: Lots of refs does not equal notability, especially when most are about one event (and not the article subject).  In addition, the article suffers from a disturbing amount of  and with the Roe 8 content removed, the article is mostly about her family and her medical issues (with references almost entirely from primary sources - interviews and her own writings
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: suggest a  close before the nominator does something that should be avoided
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: If she has been notable for some time, why did it take until 2 April for an article to be created, an article whose entire lead is {{tq|'''Corina Abraham''' is a Whadjuk Noongar elder who in 2016 challenged the Western Australian Government for failure in procedural fairness during its change to the Aboriginal Heritage status of the land to be impacted by the extension to Roe Highway known as Roe 8.}}?  That seriously smacks of  and supports the nom's argument that this is  Wikipedia:Coatrack|coatrack, as does the fact that there is nothing in the article establishing notability outside of the one event. Most of the article (and obviously all of the lead) speaks about opposition to Roe 8, with the woman's backstory added as an attempt to unsuccessfully establish notability. Looking at the 8 references, 6 are related to the Roe 8 issue. A 7th is an extract from a list of items in the City of Melville Art Collection. That alone does not generate notability. The 8th is a news piece about a major water leak in a hospital that used Abraham's story to pad out the article. Interesting to some, but not enough to establish notability. Sorry, no  close here. Notability needs to be adequately established, because it hasn't been yet. If notability can be properly established, I'd be happy to change my vote
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:SNOW)

Comment: Notability going back before Roe 8, passes  quite comfortably
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: outside the one issue (for which BLP1E would apply), searches turned up virtually no in-depth coverage to show they pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: referred to in the Australian Parliament as significant person(Whadjuk Noongar Custodian), involved in multiple events over multiple years, artist with works within a government collection. Currently challenging the WA Government in the States highest court which has potential flow on implications to Federal Government. Yes it has Roe 8 information but thats because Roe 8 is complex and significant, Abraham easily meets . There are also a number of article from Melville Herald from 2010 but those arent online I need to find time access their archives in person. and the Koori Mail in 2001http://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/docs/digitised_collections/the_koori_mail/253.pdf. This is what happens when AfD s get launched within an articles first 24 hours, if aint a prod give content creators time or even ask them a question as to the articles status I would have happily laid out that I have multiple sourcing for over 15 years that indicate this is a notable person, but given the coverage of Roe 8 (229,000 news articles so far https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=roe+8&tbm=nws)  and the fact she has lodged writs it seamed logical to push the article out so that people could find out more about this person before I had been able to organise access to the other sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: There are obviously sensible |alternatives to deletion which should be considered before turning this into a redlink
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)