Deletion of Rachel Zoll

Comment: per nom - award used to establish notability is not in itself notable, so the article fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NBIO)

Comment: No evidence of satisfying notability criteria of  or . A perfectly respectable professional who has so far not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable , independent sources, per . {{reply|Heron10}}, do you have any verifiable evidence of Zoll being regarded as an important figure? She is a journalist, so writing articles is not in and of itself noteworthy. She works for the AP, so authoring a chapter in an AP publication (trumpeted in an https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2014/ap-stylebook-2014-adds-religion-chapter-with-over-200-terms AP press release, no less) does not contribute to notability. Receiving second place in a niche award from the American Academy of Religion is laudable, but doesn't rise to "well-known and significant award or honor" per , and probably wouldn't even if she had won first place. Is there any indication that her citation rate is any higher or more impressive than the average journalist for AP, Reuters, or other syndicated news services? Notability is |not inherited by working for notable companies, and using |primary sources written by the subject cannot establish the notability of the subject: doing so invites |improper synthesis in the form of a novel inference: "this person has been widely cited, ''therefore'' they must be notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:JOURNALIST||WP:ANYBIO||WP:42||WP:ANYBIO||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:PRIMARY||WP:SYN)