Deletion of Carolyn Banks

Comment: Passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:GNG - needs an ambitious editor. 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: There are many reviews of her writing in newspapers of the time, so it is likely that she does meet . I have removed the IMDB and Amazon 'references', and I am adding reviews and articles about her work as references. I can then attempt to edit the text based on the info in the references
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Now my analysis: The majority of her coverage appears to come from ''The Bastrop Advertiser'' - a weekly newspaper for Bastrop County - and ''Austin American-Statesman'', which is the major daily newspaper for Austin, TX. As far as I can tell, she does not satisfy  criterion #1 ("The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.") based on sourcing present/below analysis. She does not satisfy  criterion #2 ("The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.") as she has not originated a significant new concept/theory/technique. Nor does she really satisfy criterion #3 as she has not "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work", nor has such work "been the primary subject of an independent and notable work." Most of the reviews below are fairly trivial in nature and mostly from repeat publications, therefore bringing the "or" clause of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" at least somewhat into question. Moving onto the |General Notability Guideline / , she has not had significant coverage in "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other" about herself. She merely has (mostly) short reviews not really talking about herself. By the numbers, ''Austin American-Statesman'' has written about her books 5 times, with one being an interview and all being fairly short; the ''Chicago Tribune'' has written about a book of her's for two sentences expressing how much he disliked the book/not covering her; ''Santa Cruz Sentinel'' was less harsh than the ''Chicago Tribune'', totaling 7 sentences but never really talking about her or establishing notability; the ''The Star Tribune'' liked ''The Dark Room'', giving it 5 short paragraphs (4 plot, 1 praising her); ''The Los Angeles Times'' reviewed 2 of her books. They arguably gave the second most substantive coverage, but again never really discussing her and mostly just plot summary; ''The Indianapolis News'' covered a book once calling it "suspenseful", mostly plot summary; ''The South Bend Tribune'' compared her book to another without any real review, short plot summary, only mentions her in subtitle; ''The San Francisco Examiner'' gave 1 review, which is by far the longest of them all
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:GNG||WP:BASIC)

Comment: Kudos to Rebecca Green for  sourcing added to the page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEYMANN)

Comment: based on number of reviews meaning that she meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)