Deletion of Chelsea Vowel (2nd nomination)

Comment: Meets , because the subject's work has been reviewed in multiple independent sources: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/chelsea-vowel/indigenous-writes/ Kirkus Reviews, http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/entertainment/books/a-necessary-dialogue-394602451.html ''Winnipeg Free Press'', http://millstonenews.com/2017/03/book-review-indigenous-writes.html ''The Millstone''. There's also http://www.cbc.ca/radio/unreserved/indigenous-storytelling-who-is-controlling-the-narrative-1.3866126/chelsea-vowel-takes-on-indigenous-misconceptions-with-new-book-1.3867725 this source from CBC (8:07 radio presentation), which has some interview content, but also includes analysis of the subject's work
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: I'd still like to see a couple more media sources if possible — the QWF award nomination, in particular, should be sourced to a media article rather than to the QWF's own press release of its shortlist — but CBC News, the Winnipeg Free Press, Kirkus Reviews and Eastern Door are all perfectly acceptable sources. Book reviews in reliable and well-established publications ''do'' count toward a writer's notability — amateur book reviews on |blogs and GoodReads and Amazon wouldn't assist, but if |reliable sources are publishing ''professional'' critical reviews of her work then notability ''is'' demonstrated by those reviews. Note, for the record, that I was the ''nominator'' of the  and entirely |primary sourced first version — and ''I'm'' satisfied that this version has properly ''addressed'' the reasons why I listed the original iteration for AFD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:BLOGS||WP:RS||WP:TOOSOON||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES)