Deletion of Shelley Webb

Comment: concerned that once again a nom is (gently?) criticised for not having carried out , although recommended they are not actually required to do so, rather the  is on the editors who add information (especially for blps) to provide |sources (but coola, what about the older articles when they didn't need them? oh:)), and to be even more pedantic doesn't  point 3 talk of a significant or well-known work having been the subject of a feature-length film not a tv series? anyway, with that rant out of the way:)) this is a '''keep''' with multiple reviews/sources, reflected now in the article, thanks to {{u|E.M.Gregory}} (also agree with them about the time it can take to 'rescue' these articles ... if only the creators included enough reliable sourcess in the first place .. sigh
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:BURDEN||WP:RS||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Ms. Webb's book, ''Footballers' Wives Tell Their Tales'', is "significant or well-known" as evidenced by its adaptation for a major television show. The cited ''Telegraph'' and ''BBC News'' articles, while somewhat shaky, appear to be enough to show that the book is "the subject of . . . multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Therefore, the subject satisfies |NAUTHOR point 3
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: that the question at AFD is not "do sources now in the article suffice?" but, rather, "do the RS that exist in the world suffice?"  The reviews I added are neither the sole, nor necessarily the most dispositive, of those that came up on searches, just 2 that happened to come up on a particular set of keywords and that I happened to pick.  I have zero interest in this writer; less in  football. I do think that some editors bring articles to AFD without , that some iVote without searching for sources, and thiat this is unfair to some subjects, such as writer's whose careers took place in the 20th century or earlier, or who have non-unique names, and who therefore may not come up on a quick google search.  The implication that unless the sources are on the page, and, sometimes, that unless the article has been edited to remove the  aspects so many articles begin with, changes the nature of AFD.  This requires an enormous time investment, an investment far beyond the relatively simple 20-30 minute process of figuring out the proper keywords to use in searching a news archives, figuring out which archives to search, and bringing a sampling of those sources to AFD or to the page itself. (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Peterson (author), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Susman
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:PROMO)