Deletion of Erica C. Barnett

Comment: the three articles at  https://www.geekwire.com/2016/nextdoor-reporter-seattle-forum/https://perma.cc/BT7A-F47A https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/nextdoor-flap-has-seattle-scrutinizing-how-it-handles-social-media/ are sufficient to meet  and the sources at  https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/10/04/41591004/what-happens-after-local-print-media-dieshttp://www.dailyuw.com/news/article_f329ff6e-eb07-11e9-9542-efa65a2db266.htmlhttp://www.seattlemag.com/article/seattles-most-influential-people-2011 show the subject is considered a signifant player in the post-print media landscape, doing city hall beat work after the downsizing of print newspapers. The sources at http://www.federalwaymirror.com/news/critics-say-draft-plan-from-homelessness-task-force-underwhelms/ https://crosscut.com/2019/06/seattle-times-reporter-accused-sending-explicit-messages-resignshttps://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/durkan-grants-longtime-associate-wife-of-deputy-mayor-a-720000-no-bid-contract-to-steer-seattles-light-rail-planning/https://crosscut.com/2019/07/defying-durkan-council-directs-extra-soda-tax-money-low-income-programshttps://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/as-some-wonder-what-he-does-retired-general-leading-seattle-squeeze-response-expected-to-leave-post/ further corroborate this, demonstrating that Barnett has filled the void in local reporting using new media and crowdsourcing. Taken together, they meet  , that the person made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: I have a number of concerns about the article - many of the sources in the article don't cover her in a  capacity, the (only two though three links exist) sources listed above which ''appear'' to satisfy  only cover her in the context of one event, and the article definitely has some COI/promotional issues. I expect this to be kept based on experience and I don't mind draftifying, but based on context and sources, I don't see her as notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: First, please note that  and  are fundamentally subjective.  Those advocating for 'keep' have presented some support for  or , and the question is only whether that support is sufficient.  There are so many guidelines on  that both 'keep' and 'delete' sides have found supporting guidelines.  It would be great if there were an objective criterion like a simple numeric cutoff for citation counts, but there isn't
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV||WP:BIO)

Comment: Subject of article clearly passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The RS clearly passes . Those saying otherwise are clearly  arguments
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)