Deletion of Eva Moskowitz

Comment: not a weak keep, but maybe a little bit quivering) per DGG's salvage suggestion and per RightCowLeftCoast.  City council members may not be automatically notable, but that doesn't make them automatically non-notable either; she passes GNG on the basis of substantial coverage of her activities both as a political figure and as an educator/author.  While I understand the merge suggestion, ultimately I think that may be confusing, and her notability does seem to go well beyond the Success Academy. This article will require close watching from neutral editors to avoid a repeat of the  problem correctly noted by Location; a prior draft of this article had one of the highest footnote-to-words-of-text ratios I've seen in a long article, but it was extremely difficult to separate the useful independent sources from the promotional chaff
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:BOMBARDMENT)

Comment: I have heavy concerns regarding  and . While the use of primary sources is allowed, the notability of a subject is determined from coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of that subject. If the primary source information is stripped, what is left to determine notability? Regarding the claims to notability, being a member of New York City Council is insufficient to pass WP:POLITICIAN. I would like to see more feedback from other editors, but I am inclined to recommend a redirect with limited merge to Success Academy Charter Schools (which has similar sourcing issues
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:BOMBARDMENT||WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: although being a member of the New York City Council does not automatically make the subject notable per , the subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/m/eva_s_moskowitz/index.html including the ''New York Times'' and elsewhere where the source has the subject has the primary sumject of the source. Therefore, the subject clearly passes , and this might fall under . That being said, the article needs work, and relies to heavily upon |primary sources; but AfD is |not a substitute for cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:BEFORE||WP:PRIMARY||WP:NOTCLEANUP)