Deletion of ARIA (novel)

Comment: Once you take away the sources from the BFS, you really don't have much. I don't see the National Trust Going Green as a site that we'd really consider to be a RS, but that's sort of a moot point since the source is using a comment by Nelder in an article that has nothing to do with the actual book or author at all. That doesn't show notability. That's the type of thing that would be considered  at best. Now I'm not really all that certain about the notability for the author either. I was hoping that I'd find more sourcing for him, but the sourcing for Nelder as a whole is relatively spotty. I'll probably nominate him for deletion, as he doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines. Again, I really hope that the fanbase doesn't take this too hard. It's very, very, VERY hard to pass notability guidelines on here. I've seen authors that hit the New York Times' bestseller list not pass notability guidelines- and these are people whose books are sold through major publishers. I remember having to fight a little bit to assert notability for WOOL when someone tried to |PROD it for deletion, so it's not as easy as saying "I'm a fan, this is notable". I have to repeat- it's insanely hard. But the problem here is that while I'd love to bend the notability guidelines for someone, we can't do that. The rules are strict because in the past we did just that and people pretty much abused this leniency and the looser guidelines to where we have stricter guidelines and we don't give any leniency. We have to hold everyone to the same standards, which unfortunately means that a lot of smaller authors get deleted. It's just that we can't keep articles based on sentiment- we have to have coverage in RS and it's just not there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:TRIVIAL||WP:PROD)

Comment: No, but as a rule of thumb, the exclusionary criteria in  gives a guide to suggest that if the book isn't included in its country's national library, it probably isn't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I checked the British Library's website and couldn't find this book. As for the claim about the novelty of alien infectious retrograde amnesia, it appears that infectious retrograde amnesia already existed as a non-fictional condition (see Retrograde_amnesia#Infections). Simply adding the concept that it's alien I think wouldn't be enough. Also, given that it's not notable enough to have been included in the British Library, you'd need some exceptional grounds for inclusion. I'd say the concept would be an un-exceptional reason. If it is true that in the future that your assertion is borne out, that future writers use this as a work of classic literature, THEN it would be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. See #CRYSTAL
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK||WP:ATA)