Deletion of Veronica Roth

Comment: Plenty of reviews in reliable sourceshttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/young-adult-books-divergent-by-veronica-roth.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/sep/13/divergent-veronica-roth-reviewhttp://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-06-202404-6http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-06-202402-2 and less notable sourceshttp://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/books/9430619-421/our-favorite-books-of-2011.htmlhttp://childrensbooks.about.com/od/productreviews/a/Divergent-Teen-Book-Review.htmhttp://teens.dbrl.org/2012/04/11/staff-review-divergent-by-veronica-roth/http://www.portraitmagazine.net/reviews/books/divergent.html USA Today interviewhttp://books.usatoday.com/bookbuzz/post/2012-03-29/exclusive-trailer-and-q38a-insurgent-by-veronica-roth/659768/1.  So many hits on Google and Google News.  The nominator is proposing a lot of articles for deletion that are clearly notable and seems not to understand WP policies such as 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: I can understand why someone would think that such a brief, poorly sourced article was ripe for the chop. But in actuality, notability ''is'' 'inherited' for creative professionals, as per , point 3. So writing a very successful, well reviewed book makes Roth notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)