Deletion of Alexia Thomas (activist)

Comment: The gap between the claims made on the page, and the sources I am finding in my searches is so enormous that it makes me wonder if some of the sources are of the sort that accept self-description.  For example a simple news google search turns up https://www.google.com/#q=%22Alexia+Thomas%22&tbm=nws a Q & A, a type of article that many reliable publications routinely print, called : ''How Europe is trying to kill millions of Africans - Prof Alexia Thomas''. It opens routinely enough with what looks editorial copy:  "Professor Alexia Thomas, Chairman, The Commonwealth Liberation Party, TCLP United Kingdom (UK), Chairman of Alliance Treaty Commission and President, Independent Diplomat Commission (IDC) in this interview reveals her Oracle status with a third-eye into the future, as she exposed sequence of danger and disaster that awaits Commonwealth nations. For example, she believes that 500 million citizens of Commonwealth nations would become victims of massacre 15 years from now as being orchestrated and led by the British Government against the coloured people."http://www.pmnewsnigeria.com/2016/02/05/how-europe-is-trying-to-kill-millions-of-africans-prof-alexia-thomas/.  What is she a "Professor" of?  Where does she teach? But then comes the first question: Q. "Q: Tell us how you were able to transit into the future in your latest revelation as an Oracle?"  Ladies and gentlemen, this looks very     Nevertheless, I persevered.  I figured, a notable human rights campaigner in the Commonwealth will have been mentioned in The Guardian, right?  A search for her in The Guardian came up absolutely empty https://www.google.com/#q=%22Alexia+Thomas%22++++site%3Atheguardian.com.  I should mention that the vetting of sources on the article's talk page is persuasive.  And that I don't see much in the way of reliable sources, or anything at all like a RS profile in my searches
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: ping|Star Islington}} did us a service investigating the citations (see article talk page) and can hopefully post here as well. Last time I stuck my !vote after being convinced there was reliable sourcing. The sources in the article are quite non-. A number of references have the exact same phrasing and rhetoric, and based on their "About Us" sections seem more pr-oriented than news. Her political party is non-notable (no article), and if so opposed to the current political makeup of the UK you'd think there would be a reference from that country. She's a PhD.. of what and from where? A professor at what university?(resolved by removal since last AfD) We are encroaching upon a  without adequate sourcing. Too many clarifications/citations needed remain, questioning the validity of these statements
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:FRINGEBLP)