Deletion of Jennifer Loomis

Comment: and {{U|Tacyarg}} ''this'' is why  is a very good idea. I looked at how the article was before you nominated it for deletion, and yeah, it was pretty marginal. It's now not remotely marginal, not going to be deleted, and your nomination statement is so at odds with the current state of the article that it's painful to see the disconnect now, EVEN THOUGH when you nominated it this article was indeed a pretty "meh" BLP.  I suggest you withdraw the nomination, because the added sources demonstrate that indeed, Ms. Loomis is exactly the sort of artist who should be profiled in Wikipedia. Cheers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Enough sources to pass  and as per sources presented by Beecaynr and per below
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  - I have been working from a list of sources on https://www.jenniferloomis.com/exhibitions her website, and have found more than trivial mentions of her and her work as a photographer in the https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Shooting-for-love-in-gay-family-photo-exhibits-2744807.php San Francisco Chronicle (2004), https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jun-19-et-netburn19-story.html The Los Angeles Times (2004), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pregnant-women-strike-a-pose/ CBS News (2007), http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,1727691,00.html Time (2008), in addition to the https://www.today.com/popculture/celebrities-make-pregnancy-seem-glamorous-wbna12466527 Associated Press (2006); there is also a brief mention in https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/style/tmagazine/15tbaby.html The New York Times (2007) and coverage I cannot fully access in https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB112372315198410490 The Wall Street Journal (2005). Some of these sources also offer biographical and career information that could be incorporated into the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)