Deletion of Iris Wedgwood

Comment: She and her books were notable in their day, and |once notable always notable. Even looking at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1784158 the public page of the Jstor article, the review in ''The Geographical Journal'' of her ''Northumberland and Durham'' was two pages long. There also appear to be reviews of ''Fenland Rivers'' in ''The New Statesman'', ''The Geographical Magazine'',  and ''The Illustrated London News'' http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&tbm=bks&q=Wedgwood+%22Fenland+Rivers%22&btnG=Search. The necessity for library research to expand an article should never be a reason to delete it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: to husband's article). The article offers no indication of any particular notability as an author, and in fact barely touches on this aspect of the topic's life, being ''almost exclusively'' focused upon genealogical/society trivia, apparently indicating that her 'notability' was almost purely 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERITED)

Comment: per Dream Focus and Voceditenore. It appears quite likely that Wedgwood meets  criteria 3, i.e. her work has been the subject of multiple reviews
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: I would note that (i) notability has not been established under any specific criteria in , (ii) keeping hammering "sources", "sources", "sources" is unavailing when few-to-none of these sources appear to address the topic's purported reason for notability (her literary career), nor appear to "address the subject directly in detail" & (iii) her "novels" do not add to her notability, only ''third-party coverage'' of them would
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)