Deletion of Eleni Antoniadou (2nd nomination)

Comment: per . It's a borderline case — there's enough material about the subject that one could easily argue for a keep based on , but it's not completely clear because much of this material appears promotional and not truly independent. But if we use this material as the basis for keeping the article, I think we must explain what happened subsequently — the deaths of the implanted patients, destruction of the careers of the higher-level people involved in the scandal, and the failure of her own company that was based on this same line of work. Based on the principle of avoiding harm to subjects in borderline BLP cases, I think we're better off deleting the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:NPF||WP:GNG)

Comment: The nominator accepts that the subject meets gng, but then makes the case that because of events that have happened since the references were created, that the notability has been diminished.  Notability |is not temporary, so even if her company has gone out of business (at least in it's original home state), even if patients died and a surgeon is discredited, if it was notable then it is still notable today
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: For these reasons: 1)  She has  based on extensive sources, therefore she does not need to pass PROF. 2) As noted above, "AT UCL Antoniadou worked in Alexander Seifalian's laboratory, which focused on bioengineering and scaffolds. While she worked in that lab, Seifalian was approached to create an artificial trachea; Antoniadou and a colleague worked on the project. When a doctor at another institution implanted the trachea, it garnered wide media attention" 3)  She posses international notability 4) As note above, she has significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: all the RS are already used", the article presently has 16 references, as a subject can meet  with just 2 or 3 |RS, it would be helpful if the nominator or 1 of the "deleters" informed us which ones are not RS or useable for notability, thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: Surely passes GNG.  Significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources.  However, the paragraph about the tracheas needs to be pared way back per .  Most of the facts here are about other people. And the article does seem promotional, but that's an argument for additional editing, not deletion.I hasten to add that I think this nom was totally appropriate. I usually decry repeat AfD noms that come so close in time after the original. But the BLP issues here (especially BLP1E and UNDUE) needed to be discussed and weren't covered in the initial AfD. Thank you Jytdog
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: I totally agree that it's a case of  and that she does not meet the notability guidelines for academics, since she is not and probably will never be an academic and not a public person. Also the article has many inaccurate things about her biographical elements, her education, her startup didn't go bankrupt or had any debt (dissolution doesn't equate with bankruptcy), and once again it's another thing to be in the scientific team that invents the prototype of an organ,a new drug, a new algorithm and another to be part of the translational team (that is usually a pharmaceutical company as it happened in this case as well, that obtained the IP rights) with the clinical team which was from another country that conducts the clinical trial. The way this story is presented is misleading to someone out of the science world. I agree that the page should be deleted because in my opinion it is promotional
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)