Deletion of Kim Iversen

Comment: for similar reasons to Devonian Wombat. Two sources might slightly be enough for , but it would probably just be a permanant stub and not worth keeping. Also, there person above who is going off about the nominator being a stalker needs to fix their tone and learn what makes an article notable, instead of spouting none sense and making accusations. Same goes for the users who are saying the article sould be kept because she's "amazing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: votes that are obviously |canvassed and do not refer to Wikipedia policies and guidelines will most likely be given no weight by the closing administrator
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)

Comment: It looks like someone is |heavily canvassing here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASSING)

Comment: article fails  and , all references are either passing mentions, primary sources or unreliable. Often, they are all three at once. The Keep votes are so stunningly awful the above conversation probably qualifies as a Delete per NOTAVOTE
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NJOURNALIST)

Comment: These comments above are hilarious. You can definitely tell that those were also |sock'ed. This is some WikiPR level stupidness. Saying things like "''Delete/banish/block the stalker''" or "''a lone individual who is working maliciously to harm the public image''" isn't going to be taken seriously. Can we just wrap this up as blatant advertising / 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK||WP:CANVAS)