Deletion of Zelma Maine-Jackson

Comment: No pass of rof. Mentions in media not enough for  so oo soon at present. Clearly an admirable person but Wikipedia notability not there yet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:GNG||WP:T)

Comment: For background on where the article comes from: it appears that there's a USA Today story about the https://missingscifaces.wordpress.com/missing-faces/ MissingSciFaces twitter feed.  The featured tweet on the story appears to be about the subject here, with the tagline "She should have a Wikipedia page!" It'd be a bit strange to be notable for not having had a Wikipedia page.  I don't see evidence of   (34 cites for top-cited pub, trailing off quickly after that), and the other coverage consists of a blog and a local news piece
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: This is a rather on-the-fence one. The arguments made by David Eppstein and bender235 leave me somewhere in the middle. I think David Eppstein's argument has been stronger on matter of policy, but I'm still not convinced WP:GNG is met. The Scientific American post about her is certainly part of a blog, and though I lack familiarity with this magazine's structure, I don't believe she works for the magazine itself; she only blogs there. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/about/ Here is her about page on the blog. I believe this scenario falls under  which states {{tq|Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:NEWSBLOG)

Comment: She appears not to be an academic or research scientist at all, so judging her by  is inappropriate. Instead, the relevant notability criterion for someone like her should be , which demands multiple sources that are independent of her, in-depth, and reliably published. The story by the Nature Conservancy appears to be in-depth, but non-independent because she's a trustee. On the other hand, the ''Scientific American'' and ''Northwest Public Broadcasting'' stories do seem to be in-depth and independent, giving her the minimum for notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)