Deletion of Catherine Lynch

Comment: Meets GNG - a person does not have to be famous to be notable in Wikipedia terms. There have been some incredibly weak delete arguments in this discussion, such as citing  for a subject that died 100 years ago, and “this is the only place I’ve seen her on the internet
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: subject passes |general notability guide. As mentioned by others here, the subject's life provides an important insight into the history in that era
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: along the lines of the similar comments above, with apologies to those who've worked on this article and put time into it. It's reasonable well-written and somewhat interesting, but it seems to fail the basic inclusion test of notability. There's practically nothing in the article that even amounts to a ''claim'' of notability; this seems to be an entirely unremarkable person who mostly escaped the attention of the media and scholars. I have to agree that if the article wasn't so developed, it would arguably be a case for speedy deletion under 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:A7)

Comment: Subject clearly passes&nbsp;the |general notability guideline, which reads {{tq|If a topic has received&nbsp;significant coverage&nbsp;in&nbsp;reliable sources&nbsp;that are&nbsp;independent&nbsp;of the subject, it is&nbsp;presumed&nbsp;to be suitable for a stand-alone article or&nbsp;list}}, and since it contains secondary sourcing it fulfills the requirement {{tq|of&nbsp;at least one&nbsp;secondary source}} within it.&nbsp;Both academic texts ({{Tq|When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources}}) and contemporary newspapers({{tq|"News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact}} are reliable sources, and provide the sole sourcing of the article:&nbsp;{{tq|Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally}}. {{pb}}It's worth remembering that notability on Wikipedia does not require a person to have been notable in their lifetime, or even to have done anything notable. {{Pb}} Incidentally, the perceived quality of the article is irrelevant:&nbsp;{{tq|if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability}}. Over all, the nomination seems to be confusing notability with individual significance, but of course,&nbsp;{{tq|notability does not&nbsp;necessarily&nbsp;depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity}}.{{pb}} A7? Really
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)