Deletion of Sarah Tuttle

Comment: per , if anything. The encyclopedia would not be substantially improved by deleting this article. In any case, removing an article about a woman scientist seems hardly a priority while there are 72 entries in :Category:Japanese female adult models, 186 in :Category:American female adult models, or 89 in :Category:Penthouse Pets, with much worse sourcing than this. In another example, there are 17 entries in :Category:Penthouse Pets navigational boxes. You get the point. Checking these BLPs out and nominating some for deletion would be more productive than spending community time removing articles on academics, even jr ones
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Fails and diligent searching has failed to produce sources that meet    Possibly a case of  for this  physicist at the assistant professor stage of her career
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: I can find multiple independent sources on GS, but they are not enough to satisfy rof#C1 in this highly cited field oo soon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:T)

Comment: per nom.  Fails to meet .  I'm not really seeing her meeting NPROF-C7, she's had ''an'' impact outside of academia, but it doesn't seem to be a ''substantial'' one like the criteria actually calls for
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: In My Opinion, She meets  #C7. I've read carefully all the arguments for and against and must agree that this lady is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. But some against base on the 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:IDONTLIKE)

Comment: per XOR'easter, WiseWoman, Levivich.  Sarah Tuttle's work meets  Criteria 1 and 7; and the current version of the article reflects that with links to ''five'' reliable independent sources that discuss both her engineering & astronomy research and her activism.  Disclosure: I know Sarah professionally.  When I say her work has had a significant impact on astronomy, I speak from my own knowledge (that does not count as an independent source
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: disclaimer, I made this page (which, incidentally, is why it is being nominated for deletion). Passes . Additionally, Tuttle created the first screen-printed PLED, which is notable in its own right. Further, I don't think it is fair that someone who makes claims like "Do you really think that 50% of all notable people are women? I suppose if you're a man you may have never noticed that notable men have outnumbered notable women for all of history
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails . For the users arguing that the article is "very well-written" see 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:MASK)

Comment: I was originally inclining to saying this article was |too soon, but finding her recognition by the NAS began to tip the balance for me. The sum total of her outreach work and the press recognition for her involvement in science activism persuaded me that she passes #C7. At worst, thanks to the improvements since the AfD began, this is a "draftify" situation &mdash; even if it ''is'' "too soon", the current content is good enough to save somewhere out of the way and build upon
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:PROF)

Comment: I added a new citation to one of her articles, providing further evidence of her meeting #C7 standards for notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: per nomination argument. FWIW,  cannot overemphasize upon the need of religiously abiding by  whilst writing about BLPs
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:INTEGRITY)

Comment: per {{u|David Eppstein}} and others.  It is pretty clear to me that this is a y AfD that has specifically targeted this article because the subject is a woman. Not only do I concur in Eppstein's rationale, I must note the application of our notability criteria: As always, the SNGs supplement GNG. The two sets of criteria are to be read together, not one as a "gotcha" to negate the other
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per the nom's thorough 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)