Deletion of Britt Marie Hermes

Comment: While I'm the author of the article, I think it is pretty clear that she passes notability: 1) Significant coverage in Vox, Forbes, National Post, CBC, and KPLU; 2) Significant coverage by leading experts and critics of complementary and alternative medicine (David Gorski, Steven Novella, and Edzard Ernst); 3) Significant coverage by media sources who wanted her opinion on major news stories concerning naturopaths, like the toddler's death in Canada and pending legislation in California; 4) Significant coverage by foreign press including a Taiwanese and French source. I think this is important given the fact that her status comes out of a topic that is typically vulnerable to |fringe issues. I did another round of looking for sources and found this news http://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-bogus-were-trump-vitamins article in Healthline which quotes her substantially along with other experts in nutrition on the topic of dubious naturopathic vitamins. There was also coverage of her by Edzard Ernst just yesterday, who is the leading authority on the scientific evaluation of complementary and alternative medicine. http://edzardernst.com/2016/06/naturopaths-rubbish-at-healthcare-excellent-at-character-assassination/ He writes about the smear campaign that naturopathic groups have launched against her, which was also covered in the Forbes article. When I drafted the article I asked for specific help to reduce any promo tone, even directly to
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Lots of in-depth coverage in mainstream media and by prominent physicians who are established experts in and critics of alternative medicine. Her being the only naturopathic defector and a significant voice against an alternative-medicine profession that is trying to become mainstream warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. I'd say that  is being wrongly invoked by nominator. Issues with promo tone can be sorted out on article's talk page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: This nomination is so far from the point of . As other editors have mentioned, it needs cleanup to sound more encyclopedic in tone. Cleanup is warranted, but saying it's promotional is an overstatement. Notability is clearly established in the sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Not sure how she can be deemed a "non-notable critic of naturalpathic medicine" when the news link above yields substantial coverage in pretty impressive list of media. On the first page of the Gnews hits alone, there are articles in Forbes, which headlines her feature article, "Why Is Big Naturopathy Afraid Of This Lone Whistleblower?", then National Post, CBC, etc. The nominator suggests that  applies. I don't see this as anywhere near bad enough for TNT. I am ''not'' philosophically opposed to TNT but the nominator is drastically overstating things
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: The sources cited in the article are plenty to satisfy , and while the article needs work, I don't see that it sinks to the level of . &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:TNT)