Deletion of Jodi O'Donnell-Ames

Comment: per nomination: there's simply nothing here that would pass . I was initially going to suggest redirecting to Hope Loves Company, but having taken a look at that page, I've started an AfD discussion for it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: She is an author who has written published works. An advocate for those suffering with ALS. She has been the topic of many primary and secondary reliable sources including newspapers and other media outlets. She has won awards for her contributions to the ALS community. A simple Google search reveals just how impactful she has been on a segment of our world population suffering from this terrible disease. She soars above the line called 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: A quick Google search reveals nine pages of articles and discussion about O'Donnell-Ames and her work. The article has no intention of serving a function like that of LinkedIn—the accomplishment of being the first person in the U.S. to establish a non-profit for the children of ALS patients is significant, and no work opportunities are being sought out. Her work is referenced in the article Hope Loves Company. Perhaps this article (or portions of it) can be merged into Hope Loves Company, but this page does contain notable, reliable articles about accomplishments significant enough to warrant its own space, as well as enough notable sources and proof of accolades to meet the requirements of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I love ya {{u|Tagishsimon}} but we disagree here. This is a woman who is influential within a very specific community and on a very important topic. What you stated in your comment is an opinion. Opinions should be shared but they do not supersede policy. I have shared my opinion on many occasions here. The most compelling are when it links with policy. Does she meet the requirements of ? Yes! The picture provided is another thing entirely. It could be that it is incorrectly tagged or it might be a copyright issue. That does not keep her from being notable. On principle and policy she passes, opinions on the style of wording in the article only apply if you can prove it is written with a distinct bias or if you can prove there is a COI. Outside of proof, the claims made are no more relevant than me saying the moon is made of cheese
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)