Deletion of Alanna Shaikh

Comment: I would consider a TEDFellow to meet  #3 and possibly #2. It is at least as selective and prestigious as an IEEE Fellow etc. If Senior TED Fellow is arguable under NPROF I would say it is not under #1. See my additional arguments re its selectivity  vice IEEE Fellow http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alanna_Shaikh&diff=728977458&oldid=728970269 here and re application of  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alanna_Shaikh&diff=729140059&oldid=729135620 here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC||WP:ANYBIO||WP:BASIC)

Comment: Does not meet  - her book is self-published. https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Killing-Us-Practical-Understanding-ebook/dp/B007MAHLJ4/r Amazon. Does not meet wp:ACADEMICS - almost no writings and very very few cites. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Alanna+Shaikh&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= G-scholar. Does not meet GNG because the info about her on the TED talk page is not independent, may even have been written by her. What remains are brief mentions and quotes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: there seem to be enough good sources for this article to have the necessary expansion, passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: These sources seem to me to clearly surpass , and the attempts to argue with every single person arguing for keep are pretty querulous. We get it, Lemongirl942 takes a different view of these sources from many others; insistently trying to argue with every respondent doesn't invalidate the abundance of different views as to those sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: with an eye to a future entry. At the moment most of the case for this entry seems to be --to me she does sound interesting and important, to the extent I'm surprised this discussion has not turned up a profile of her from an independent, reliable secondary source, and I'd love to see this entry resubmitted if or likely when that does happen (or better still, happens nmore than once), but the general principle that Wikipedia editors should not take on the task of evaluating the legitimacy and significance of primary sources seems both 1, applicable, and 2, well-advised, given the way this debate illustrates how hard that can be to sort out
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:ORIGINAL)

Comment: Per  point
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMICS)

Comment: Can anyone make an argument for TED Senior Fellows conferring notability under a rubric other than ? To me the latter does not apply here at all, as Shaikh is not an academic and TED is not a scholarly society, but if TED Senior Fellowship meets some other notability guideline, great
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: as a  fail. Being a TED fellow does not automatically establish notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I have sat on the fence for a while to see what sources would emerge, but I have been disappointed  by the result. The article contains zero in-depth independent sources and so cannot satisfy 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: it's clear this article needs to be improved, not deleted per . Clearly meets  criteria
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:GNG)

Comment: The article passes  due to its reliable sources. Furthermore, I greatly agree with the  point made by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NACADEMICS)

Comment: I did not see any mention in the article of http://www.undispatch.com/author/alanna-shaikh/ her writings at UNDispatch (Not an organ of the UN but sponsored by http://www.unfoundation.org/ The United Nations Foundation) so there may be some  criteria if anyone wants to go digging. She is being quoted in news articles as the primary "counterpoint" voice. See {{cite news|url=https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-226774124.html|title=GLOBAL: USAID urged to tackle urbanization |newspaper=IRIN Africa English Service|date=19 May 2010||no-tracking=yes}} {{highbeam}} She and her writings/blogs have been mentioned in {{cite book|author1=David Lewis|author2=Dennis Rodgers|author3=Michael Woolcock|title=Popular Representations of Development: Insights from Novels, Films, Television and Social Media|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=wJinAgAAQBAJ|date=23 January 2014|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-1-135-90263-6}} so here social media work (that is what the book is looking at) is recognized as influential there.   As to the "notability" of the being a TED Senior Fellow from http://blog.ted.com/meet-the-new-class-of-2015-ted-fellows-and-senior-fellows/ this they chose 10 people in 2015 from a group who had ''already'' been TED Fellows so it is rather selective. To compare in 2015 the IEEE (the society given as an example in NPROF) elevated 297 of the  833 people nominated as an IEEE Fellow http://www.ieee.org/documents/fellow_stats_summary_years.pdf
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NJOURNALIST)

Comment: The sole question at AfD is notability, which can be be established either directly with multiple reliable independent secondary sources addressing the subject in detail as required by  or presumptively, e.g., as a .  I reviewed each of the sources cited in the article and made a good faith attempt to search for others.  My conclusion is that the sources to support notabity do not exist.  Her own articles are obviously , but so are the  and passing mentions where she's quoted on various topics.  I simply could not find the sources I would need to support a keep.  I also do not believe she qualifies for presumptive notability based on either TED fellowship (not quite the same as, e.g., an IEEE fellowship) or as a scholar based on her meager https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=gsb90&q=Alanna%20Shaikh&lookup=0&hl=en citation count.  I came here from the discussion of systemic bias at  talk page to get a background on the issue.  But this is not the poster child for claims of bias.  This is someone who's just not (yet?) notable under our guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SCHOLAR||WP:PRIMARY||WP:INTERVIEWS||WP:N)