Deletion of Gabrielle Diana

Comment: per , and I just added ''The Independent'' source referenced above to the article, which also appears to be providing commentary on Gladu's activism, e.g. "Transgender rights have come to mainstream attention in recent years, thanks to the work of campaigners as well as celebrities
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: I'd love to vote keep and if anyone can show me sources that are reliable and intellectually independent that give them significant in-depth coverage I will change my vote. A  doesn't revel much. I see most of the sources listed for the article are social media sites. I share in the beauty of people expressing themselves but identifying as a particular sexual orientation or gender does not make you notable. Being an activist for said and other points of view/preferences does not inherently make one notable. Even being a singer/song writer/player of instruments does not automatically make you notable. As is, the subject fails basic notability criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Persistent, multi-year coverage of this transgender activist is found in multiple reliable sources and documents multiple events. Clearly meets . This is a  situation, I think. For the record, this is exactly the situation where some source-hunting before delete !votes is useful, because it would suck to see more (sometimes generally lacking) coverage of lgbtq minorities removed before said articles get a chance to be improved
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:HEY)

Comment: per , being impressed by the group effort to remove all the unreliable sources and unsupported claims, and to comply with the |manual of style
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:MOS)