Deletion of Kathryn Troutman

Comment: Seems note-worthy to me. Refs including  Parade, University of Baltimore, Washington Post, Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services Center, Inc., and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  is an essay, not a policy, and even as an essay doesn't dismiss SPAs without due reason. Here we have a person with a . Instead of making socks, stacking votes, spamming articlespace with articles, et cetera, they went to great lengths to learn about and follow guidelines on  and . I should also point out that the COI guidelines do not expressly forbid such editing, only "strongly discourage" such edits, which is reasonable, since it's hard to follow  when you are closely tied to something. However, since there was a great deal of help from another editor without a COI, there has been some great improvements. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathryn_Troutman&oldid=308055081 Look at this article when it was first made as a userdraft, and then look at it now. While it may not be perfect, I find no defects in it myself to warrant deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA||WP:COI||WP:NPOV||WP:COI||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Eh, i'm not seeing it as a resume. :/ Even if it is as you say,  is not a reason to put an article up for deletion. It's something that should be tagged and fixed. The sources themselves are valid, since they come from valid publications, regardless of their relation to the subject. The Washington Post is a valid source
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)