Deletion of Elizabeth McLeay

Comment: Passes  with multiple reviews of two single-author books, as well as reviews of collaborations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Per RebeccaGreen's discovery of the other book, the multiple published reviews of both books, and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: The article as it stands does not mention any of her publications except one, published this year (for which I see there is a review published in the journal ''Political Science'' in October 2018 https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rpnz20/current - it seems likely that there may be other reviews still to be published). She also published a book in 1995, ''The cabinet and political power in New Zealand'', which Google Scholar says has been cited 68 times. The Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics|Citation metrics guidelines say "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information." and recommend "looking at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat)". So the 1995 book is in 189 libraries, and the book published this year is already in 30 libraries. She is also the author of quite a few articles. The Deletion rationales above don't mention citations or library holdings - I hope that those editors looked, as  and meeting  are not required - I think we need to be looking at  #1 and perhaps #7. I would say that it is significant that she was one of the two academics, of the 19 who criticised the government's legislation, who represented the group at the parliamentary select committee, as reported in one of the sources included (and one of the other academics has in fact said that they were the two who did the majority of the work https://twitter.com/acgeddis/status/974347542266707968).  does not require coverage ''of her'' or ''about her'', it requires evidence of her impact
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG||WP:NACADEMIC||WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: I really can't believe that there's no  for this woman, but I can't find any and what is provided in the article doesn't meet it (it consists of drive-by references, quotes from her - not coverage of her - and her own books).  isn't the only relevant standard - she might be notable as a politician or even just under , but at the moment there is not enough to sustain notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NPROF||WP:BASIC)

Comment: The deletion rational points out weak sourcing. I agree that notability is a problem; I don't see anything close to a pass of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)