Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Parker (2nd nomination)
without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do much better than this. None of the sources here are even remotely acceptable (two |primary sources and a Blogspot |blog, the end), and the article is written too much like a bulletpointed résumé rather than a proper encyclopedia article — and while there are certainly things here that might make her eligible to have an article if she could be shown to actually clear , there's nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to ''exempt'' her from having to clear GNG. And passing GNG is a matter of ''showing'' that enough sourcing to clear GNG exists, not of simply theorizing that enough sourcing to clear GNG ''might'' exist. So I'd be willing to reconsider this if there were much, much better evidence of a GNG pass — but the sourcing here ain't cutting it
— User:Bearcat, 15:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:BLOGS||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:No original research)