Deletion of Holly M. Lewis

Comment: The book has multiple published reviews and there are reliable sources (but not reviews that I could find) for the film. And the Concordia source also looks reliable and in-depth. I think there's a case to be made for , but it's a weak one. Incidentally, her work on Plato (which I removed from the article as too minor and boring to highlight — it's merely additional material for a translation by someone else) is under the name "Holly Davidson Lewis", but other sources (e.g. her cv) make clear that this is the same person as the "Holly M. Lewis" that we're discussing here. So editors looking for sources on this subject should be careful about the multiplicity of names
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: Does not pass rof unless citations to her work can be found. oo soon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:T)

Comment: I withdrew last week, due to lack of time to examine the new sourcing and argument.  The film appears to have gotten no attention aside from a listing in the things-to-do-section of a newspaper and a listing by the British film Institute which appears to run an IMDB type list, neither of which contributes to notability. Nor can I find additional sources on the film or on Lewis that do. Of the 4 book reviews, 2 appear  minor, online political publications https://solidarity-us.org/atc/187/p4913/, https://mronline.org/2017/07/25/the-politics-of-everybody/, where it is framed not as scholarship but as an https://mronline.org/2017/07/25/the-politics-of-everybody/ "a landmark work of engaged revolutionary politics."  The review in the minor scholarly journal ''Critical Theory'' (not bluelinked) similarly frames it as a less a work of scholarship than it is a http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0261018316655715d "political project...The arguments in The Politics of Everybody are not evidenced in the way that we might expect from an academic text...  Holly Lewis seeks to move both political debate, and perhaps more importantly, political action forward. The 4th, in Socialist Review is unenthusiastic.  One of the reviews reads https://solidarity-us.org/atc/187/p4913/ ''" Lewis and I are comrades in arms and friendly sparring partners. We agree much more often than we disagree."'' and the fact that the reviews appear in formally Socialist publications makes it possible that they are not independent of the author.   Be that as it may, the book did not receive warm reviews, was not reviewed in mainstream publications or in the major academic journals, and appears to have made little impression in the worlds of politics or ideas, neither the book nor Lewis are widely cited.   In short, Lewis (an assistant professor at a minor university,)  appears to be a minor academic who has produces a film that got no attention, written a very minor book, and no important articles. Perhaps it is merely 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)