Deletion of David Katz (author)

Comment: per . It has been fixed up a lot, especially in the reviews, but could use more work
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: per the RS called out by DES. .  was reviewed. Des has done some work to the article to show notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP||WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: Per . Article is good enough to pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: per DES who is correct about 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Fails ; clear promo material
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The article now includes cites to significant reviews of Katz's work from ''Publisher's Weekly'', ''With Guitars'', and ''Record Collector Magazine''. All of these are |independent and |reliable sources. I believe these also establish that Katz passes . Several of these were added by {{U|1dubwize}} today, and I think they constitute an example of . If those expressing views above did so before these cites were added, then I urge them to recheck this and reconsider. None of them addressed any of these sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IS||WP:RS||WP:NAUTHOR||WP:HEY)

Comment: per , being the author of a notable work does not make the author notable. There are many obscure authors of notable works, where the work has drawn attention but the author (as in this case) fails GNG, and fails it big-time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (:WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: for failing all four criteria for .  I've clicked through all 20 citations and I see industry book reviews, event calendars, list of participants, and news/magazine columns.  Very promotional and reads like a professional resume. To say that one "contributed" to a BBC production can mean anything that gets a screen credit. Policy does say that a subject can be "..notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."  He appears to be a regular music contributor to the UK ''Guardian'' and did author a cover story for ''Mojo'' magazine but I don't see anything he has done to reach a level of encyclopedic notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:JOURNALIST)