Deletion of Erika Schwartz

Comment: A |biography of a person who is at ''best'' marginally notable, sourced primarily to non-|reliable sources? How is this even a point of contention? our BLPs have higher thresholds than other articles for good reason
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:RS)

Comment: meets  and . (note, some of these cites are already in the article, apologies in advance for length of the following:)) Numerous reviews of her books, Publishers Weekly reviewed ''THE 30-DAY NATURAL HORMONE PLAN: Look and Feel Young Without Synthetic HRT'' - "The strength of Schwartz's program is that it's designed to be gradually introduced into one's lifestyle." and "These strategies will be helpful to menopausal women and others with hormonal imbalance who want to avoid any possible health risks in taking synthetic hormones.", http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-446-53255-6, and ''THE TEEN WEIGHT-LOSS SOLUTION: The Safe and Effective Path to Health and Self-Confidence'' - "This is an eye-opening book for parents who want to help their teenage daughters explore natural methods of safely managing the weight gain, acne and hormonal changes common to female adolescence.", http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-06-073932-4, The New York Times review http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/04/health/books-on-health-standing-up-for-nature.html of ''The Hormone Solution'' is extremely short and just states whats in the book ie. "Dr. Schwartz contends that natural hormones, including progesterone and estrogen, seem to be the best substances to treat imbalances without creating side effects. She covers their use in PMS, mood swings, postpartum depression, hot flashes and loss of libido. And since hormone imbalance is not limited to menopausal women, she discusses hormones' value in women of all ages and in men.", Not all of the EBSCO Industries|EBSCO results are self-authored articles, here are yet more book reviews - http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/book-reviews/14446908/teen-weight-loss-solution-safe-effective-path-health-self-confidence-book - reviews of ''The Teen Weight-Loss Solution'' and http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/book-reviews/11939032/30-day-natural-hormone-plan-look-feel-young-again-without-synthetic-hrt-book of ''The 30-Day Natural Hormone Plan'' appearing in the ''Library Journal'', http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/book-reviews/6762742/look-powerful-remedy - review of ''The Hormone Solution:'' appearing in ''Natural Health Magazine'' (presume the US. edition
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: marginal , all sources found is on her fringe theories and not about her themselves. Violates  and BLP. Special:Contributions/166.164.37.67|166.164.37.67
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:GNG)

Comment: article does not satisfy , as reliable sources are few and far between to meet the in-depth and third-party coverage needed for . One or two sources that cover this doctor in marginal biographical detail but in great detail of her |fringe practices do not do the job. The fact that she has authored numerous promotional articles about her own business enterprises further demonstrates that she is reaching with great challenge for notability in the public sector, and therefore, fails to do so given no one really seems to write anything about her. In this case it is important to stick with BLP in deciding the matter. Special:Contributions/128.196.130.121|128.196.130.121
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP||WP:FRINGE||WP:FRINGEBLP)

Comment: on some of the comments/arguments above - "The article fails to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:BLP." and "At present the article is insufficient to keep as a BLP You would need to add the actual WP:RSes, not just hope they exist" - an article in Wikipedia does not have to establish the notability of its subject, nor do actual WP:RSes have to be added, a subject can be notable and have a poorly written article, please see Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability|Article content does not determine notability. Also - "This is an article about the person herself. It is a biography and as such we need sources about her" - not necessarily, although  states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published4 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,5 and independent of the subject.6" which may appear to mean coverage ''about the subject'',  states that a subject is notable if "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", so that if there are multiple reviews of her books, then that will suffice.  Also regargding BLPs requiring indepth sources,  specifically states - "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", so again no, there do not have to be indepth coverage of the subject (but then, there will need to be a lot more
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:AUTHOR||WP:BASIC)