Deletion of Ruth Currie McDaniel

Comment: Whether sources are present in the article as it stands now is irrelevant for judging notability at AfD; |sources count if they exist, even if they don't happen to be included in the current draft. For an academic working (a) in the humanities and (b) in the pre-Internet era (her first book was apparently in 1987), Google Scholar is going to be pretty useless &mdash; citation counts there won't indicate much one way or the other. I turned up 8 scholarly reviews of 2 books without trouble, which is enough to satisfy me that she passes : https://search.proquest.com/docview/1713531362https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cwbr/vol7/iss1/39/https://www.jstor.org/stable/40581769https://www.jstor.org/stable/1894461https://www.jstor.org/stable/1868259https://www.jstor.org/stable/23518905https://www.jstor.org/stable/2209430https://www.jstor.org/stable/27555253
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST||WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: I think 11 reviews of two of her books should be enough for . Thanks to {{u|Megalibrarygirl}} for incorporating the reviews into the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR)