Deletion of Erika Schwartz (2nd nomination)

Comment: There are not enough sources and that introduces tensions between two competing imperatives:  versus . Any article needs to be absolutely clear that her ideas are bogus, but we cannot do that without overwhelming the scant biographical data there is and ending up as a  on which to hang the reality-based consensus on bioidentical hormones
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NPOV||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: meets . Article could use expansion and clean up, not deletion per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ATD)

Comment: Passes  with extensive coverage on her and her work from sources like the ''New York Times'', the ''Daily Mail'', ''USA Today'',  ''CBS News'' and others. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/04/health/books-on-health-standing-up-for-nature.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3249709/Can-woman-help-make-menopause-best-days-life-Meet-doctor-s-won-host-high-flying-women.htmlhttp://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/12/11/doctor-author-says-watch-out-doctors/77163114/http://www.cbsnews.com/news/menopause-therapy-sparks-controversy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)