Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Schwartz

:{{la|Dana Schwartz}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dana_Schwartz Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Dana Schwartz}})

First ref is her own website. 2nd and 3rd refs are interviews. 4th one is a commercial catalog. Therefore non notable bio. Mar11 (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:CREATIVE. Per WP:INTERVIEW, "An independent interviewer represents the 'world at large' giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." I removed the commercial link and replaced it with a pair of book reviews. XOR'easter (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - straightforward choice: early-career writer but tons of interviews, profiles and book reviews. Blythwood (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep- per improvements done since nomination.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Her sources include several examples of significant in-depth coverage over her career, and she has also written two noteworthy books. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep SIGCOV exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.