Deletion of That Vegan Teacher

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Per reasons and sources indicated above. Article is good enough to pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Sources provided by previous commentors (or a basic google news search) indicate passing GNG.  does not apply because I have found several sources (ie. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/lifestyle/2020/09/vegan-extremist-miss-kadie-quits-organ-donor-status-after-realising-humans-are-despicable.html and https://7news.com.au/sunrise/on-the-show/vegan-activist-blasted-for-saying-she-would-not-donate-organs-to-meat-eaters-c-1315745) that demonstrate media coverage surrounding controversy over comments she made about organ donation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: vote is up top) this article needs a cleanup according to 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: I wouldn't call this a core article or anything, but we have between September last year and now a spate of headlines about this woman's content, including https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/that-vegan-teacher-n-word-video/ two days ago. When people look for attention by being provocative it becomes very hard to write a balanced article while still being truthful, so I'm not exactly sure what the policy is on that matter. If all sources are negative, does that fail our  responsibility to write fairly
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: per . The only coverage in reliable sources relates directly to being banned from TikTok. No significant coverage or indication of lasting significance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)