Deletion of Hattie King Reavis

Comment: There's no opinion involved with what cite means. It's in fact clearly defined in the very first line of . Any goal post moving I did was in response to new claims after old ones were abandoned. And I don't think you can accuse me of ulterior motives and call me "butthurt" and then also call this a discussion. Since civility seems to be heading for the door, probably best I  too. Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:CITE||WP:WALKAWAY)

Comment: per all of the sources listed above. Sustained coverage and coverage by multiple reliable, independent sources (even if not substantial) are an indicator of notability, per  and , respectively. It seems like all signs point to her being notable. Not having easily-available online, significant coverage doesn't seem like a strong enough argument for deletion (especially in this particular case, where the subject is a black woman from the 1920s and there have been many sources found
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SUSTAINED||WP:BASIC)