Deletion of Doria Ragland

Comment: per  or '''merge''' into article title Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: the repeated argument about , which sees to be the only argument for 'delete' simply does not apply here, as per
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: The only news she makes is as the "mother of Meghan Markle." Notability is |not accrued to the family of famous people, and that is certainly all that Ragland is notable for. After deletion, a '''redirect''' should be created, pointing at the section of Meghan's article that deals with her family
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: or '''Move''' - Agree with . Also, too many tabloid sources in the article that provides little information that are fit to be in an encyclopedia. There seems to be some news surrounding Markle's father. I would support a new article titled Family of Meghan Markle where such matters are grouped
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: Notability is independently-demonstrated by the breadth and depth of significant coverage in multiple  linked in the article and available from even the most cursory of searches
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I know that in general there is a policy that people shouldn't be given articles if they're only notable for being a relation of someone famous, but in this case there are clearly enough sources about Doria Ragland specifically to pass GNG and make a reasonably well referenced article. Personally I think the policies on inherited notability are too strict, and I'd incline towards |ignoring all rules in this instance. This article's presence definitely doesn't diminish Wikipedia in any way, and is clearly of interest to many people
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Notability independently-demonstrated for a page due to significant coverage from numerous third party RS sources which clearly passes GNG.  doesn't apply here as this isn't applied if the person "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: Passes  as there is good detailed coverage such as ''https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/a19991645/meghan-markle-mom-doria-ragland/ Good Housekeeping''.  Note that the page in question has had over 1.5 million readers recently
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: I actually came here to vote delete, but upon rechecking the sources,  is met, even if there isn't any indication that this person has done anything of significance
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Subject clearly meets . People want to read about the subject, and many writers have published reliable sources for us to reliably summarize. I wonder if some of the good faith deletion-minded editors might consider whether their opposition really boils down to . Cheers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)