Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornelia Chase Brant
I believe that the obituaries suffices to meet .  I think that they are sufficiently independent of one another -- after all, there are only so many things you can say in an obit.  As they looks in part to be local news (albeit in large metropolitan area), I don't think the case here is so strong, but I think it's enough to pass the bar, especially on a historical figure like this.  Other sources: The biography is not independent (as co-authored by the subject's daughter), but is  and may be used with caution to fill in details.  The remaining sources listed by Cunard comprise reviews of the book (unless I'm missing something).  I don't believe in the  C6 case, but one notability criterion is enough.  I do think that there is a substantial case to merge this article into an article on the biography (which has a much clearer pass of our notability criteria with its many reviews), but as this article is much improved over when it was nominated for deletion, I don't think that is so clear cut as it was earlier.  The homeopathy aspects may require watchlisting for  editors
— User:Russ, 08:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BASIC||WP:SIGCOV||WP:NPROF||WP:FRINGE (Wikipedia:Notability)