Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Tuttle
Recent improvements to the article make a plausible case for #C7 "substantial impact outside academia"..."may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media". It's not relevant for this that she's relatively junior, or not as heavily cited as one would expect for a more senior academic. And although the Kavli Fellow is not the kind of fellowship that passes  by itself, it is also indicative of a certain level of prominence. But my keep is still only weak because the sourcing is weak. Most of the sources are by her, quote her, name-drop her with little detail, or are primary. For a non-weak keep of #C7 I'd prefer to see more independent sourcing of her and her role in science communication
— User:David, 22:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:PROF (Wikipedia:Notability)