Deletion of Alison Styring

Comment: Given that her attempt to crowd funding|crowd fund her research has been mentioned, in rather more than passing, in both the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/science/12crowd.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all and Die Zeit http://www.zeit.de/2011/36/Forschung-Crowdfunding/komplettansicht (both already cited in the article), there's an argument for  - though possibly more at the "this deserves a mention somewhere" level than the "she deserves her own article" one. But one interesting note - while she gets several GNews hits, neither of these two is among them. Is GNews missing anything else
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Agree that the RSs are there, as reflected above.  Per , nominations should be focused on whether such sources exist, not whether they are in the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: spaced ndash}}The topic passes notability guidelines per , notability for people, specifically the section , “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” Therefore, the topic passes , section  due to the ''availability'' of multiple independent sources which demonstrate notability and the manner of which those sources are not comprised of trivial coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BASIC||WP:BIO||WP:BASIC)

Comment: Cites in GS are 7, 6, 4, 1, 1. Although the area of scholarship is likely to be lowly cited, the cites achieved by the subject are not sufficient to pass rof#1. I don't see anything else
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)