Deletion of Leema Dhar

Comment: Per |AUTHOR, a creative professional's biography may be kept if ''"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."'' Leema has created (authored) her well known book and the same has been the subject of multiple reviews like http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-910665 CNN's iReport featuring Leema Dhar's interview with Book Review Forum, http://www.theglobaltimes.in/archives/april-08-2013.pdf Global Times half pager on Leema, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1160508/jsp/7days/story_84396.jsp Telegraph's small but significant piece on Leema, http://www.merinews.com/article/review-the-girl-who-kissed-the-snake/15887602.shtml Merinews review of Leema's book, http://www.amarujala.com/uttar-pradesh/allahabad/Allahabad-30609-8 this significantly long piece on Leema done by Amar Ujala which is amongst the top five Hindi regional language newspapers in India, http://www.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/lucknow-city-lima-dhar-become-best-oneline-writer-11412584.html this piece on Leema in Jagran, the highest read daily in India. And none of these is authored by Leema. This biography needs to be developed properly with these references rather than be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Why not work on the article to correct the pointed reference issues than trying to AfD it in the first place ? Did we go through  ? I am missing out on that . It will rather be prudent to close this deletion request at this point as the AfD nomination doesn't look valid
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: per .  The vast majority of sources in the article are reliable and most provide reasonably comprehensive coverage of the subject.  I'm not sure I would say that the coverage of the subject is ''extensive'', but I feel there is definitely enough here to meet notability guidelines.  I am of the opinion that the notability guidelines are about ensuring enough content for a useful article can be found in |reliable sources.  We have enough content sources from reliable sources here for an article that describes the subject, thus my argument for meeting 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: I don't really understand the nominators rationale ("The articles and links are poor and not standard. Except The Telegraph's articles other articles are not as per wikipedia standard guidelines") adequate, either.  Content and sourcing issues actually aren't adequate grounds for deletion unless it must be completely rewritten in order to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, which clearly isn't the case here - it was adequate enough for an experienced editor to deem it suitable for mainspace.  Essentially, not sure  took place before nomination
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)