Deletion of Rashida Richardson

Comment: Meets  Article supported with reliable and independent sources provide coverage of the subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per . The notability is borderline, but I find it sufficient for a neutrally worded article -- esp. the MIT Technology source. In any event, it's not a good look for Wikipedia to be deleting an article on a Black female scholar whose research focuses on the use of IA in policing of marginalised communities
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: per the discussion above. I am not seeing any examples of specific and detailed coverage of the subject by independent , as required by . GNG requires that a source address the subject "directly and in detail." One-two sentences per source don't count, even of there are 50 sources of this type
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: I agree that this is borderline, although I think she's doing important work. What pushes me from weak keep to weak delete is that her only publication with triple-digit citations on Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YJ0_lKgAAAAJ has 12 authors (and she's in the middle of a non-alphabetical list), so we can hardly credit Richardson with most of its success. Beyond the wrong-side-of-borderline case for #C1, I don't see anything else
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)