Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Heartfield
There's no solid reliable sourcing being cited here at all. The article is referenced mostly to |primary sources, |blogs, podcasts and content where she's the bylined ''author'' rather than the ''subject'' — and the only two sources that are acceptable for use as Wikipedia references at all (''Tor'' and the ''Ottawa Citizen'') still have problems, because the ''Tor'' piece just namechecks her existence without being ''about'' her, while the ''Citizen'' piece is about her work ''for'' the ''Citizen'' and thus isn't ''independent'' of her. And the article claims ''nothing'' about her that would constitute an automatic free pass over  in the ''absence'' of better sourcing than this, either. A writer is not automatically eligible for a Wikipedia article just because she exists — she has to pass an AUTHOR criterion, and she has to have |reliable source coverage ''about'' her ''for'' it, for an article to become earned
— User:Bearcat, 18:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:BLOGS||WP:AUTHOR||WP:RS (Wikipedia:No original research)