The result was delete. This is very borderline, and difficult to get at any essential notability due to the article being poorly written with trivial sourcing that should not have been used. As noted in the discussion, the article is not focused on why the subject is notable (which appears mainly due to the Nextdoor incident), but attempts to create a general notability for which there is little evidence. There is some disagreement over the value of the alcohol article in establishing notability. I haven't given that article nor the discussion against it much weighting either way. It appears to a promotional piece for a book she has written, though that thought is not present in the discussion, so I have not considered it as weighing against notability, and on the whole have viewed that article as possibly leaning toward notability, though it would require more than that to keep the article. The most viable piece of sourcing for the subject's notability is the Nextdoor incident, though it is argued that coverage is about the incident rather than the person, so one event would apply. The delete arguments used in the discussion are more closely aligned to our inclusion criteria and policies than the keep arguments; and though there are more keeps than deletes, the keep statements are more assertions rather than rationales. "Meets XYZ" without giving details is not helpful to a closer. That is not to say there aren't some detailed keep statements and a healthy and lively discussion has taken place, but where there have been solid keep rationales, they have been refuted by reference to inclusion guidelines. I did consider this as a No consensus close, but on the whole feel that the delete arguments were more convincing when looking at the article and the sourcing, so close as delete, though will userfy on request to anyone who feels they can rewrite and refocus the article appropriately. SilkTork (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)