Deletion of The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius

Comment: I'd been holding off on providing an opinion in this AfD in the hope that it would be possible to make a neutral article that covers the book in an appropriate level of depth while avoiding the hype and BLP problems that surround it. But signs point to no: the article text avoids those problems only by being too lacking in content, the sources we have in the article are all still hype and churnalism, and the remaining non-hype source identified here (the skeptic one) is only tangentially about the book and more about Barnett and the stories that have been built around him. And having at best only one non-publicity-driven source, it doesn't meet the "two or more" requirement of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BKCRIT)

Comment: Unfortunately, this book does not seem to be inherently notable, although it does seem to promote a good cause, which makes me sympathetic to it. Perhaps if this book surges in popularity later, the article can be recreated. Now, however, it does not pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: technically, should this not be a speedy delete via  since the creator brought about this deletion discussion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (:WP:G7)

Comment: this recent AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is Genesis History?, a film promoting Young Earth creationism.  The arguments are the same as the argument here.  Virtually no one argued that it was a great film, that it was a film supported by scholarly evidence, that it was film about a scientifically valid theory, or that Genesis 1 is an accurate history of the origins of life.  Instead, as here, editors argued that the film, like this book, had generated more than sufficient reviews and feature article coverage to pass  and , and that the rules we apply to judging the notability ought to be the same for all films and all books
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NFILM)

Comment: Appears to fail 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: an attempt to circumvent  and prior deletion discussions. The project is better off without the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: The reason Wikipedia requires reliable independent secondary sources is that reliable journals and reliable journalism have fact-checking protocols. Larger journalistic enterprises hire fact-checkers whose job it is to ensure they publish accurately the details of each story, or they have other sourcing protocols reporters must follow. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources that are fact-checked, because Wikipedia does not have professional fact checkers, just us, the editors who write and revise articles. The Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Overview|Overview section of the |guideline includes this statement:  {{tq|Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources.}} Note the verb ''must'' in that last sentence
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IRS)

Comment: the article meets  {{tq|The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.}} https://www.geteduca.com/blog/finding-the-spark/ https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sensorium/201305/the-spark-and-synesthesia and those in the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: The article's topic meets the  as it's received significant coverage by |reliable sources independent of the topic.  As I type this, there are currently 9 sources cited by the article including the Washington Posthttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/book-review-the-spark-a-mothers-story-of-nurturing-genius-by-kristine-barnett/2013/05/17/e3763448-9ba4-11e2-9a79-eb5280c81c63_story.html and USA Today.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/08/indiana-boy-genius-book/2064921/  Random House is a major publisher and I wouldn't doubt that many more sources could be found, but I believe that the article as written already has enough to prove that it meets GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)