Deletion of Tara Westover

Comment: meets , as having "created a well known work" ie. https://www.worldcat.org/title/educated-a-memoir/oclc/986898537&referer=brief_results ''Education'' in around 700 libraries thruout the world, and it has "been the primary subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", enough already in the article and just looking at the 1st page of a gsearch lists more from |notable and independent sources - https://www.google.com.au/search?biw=1366&bih=548&ei=Mq6vWuezKMam8AXO3auwBA&q=Educated+%3A+a+memoir+tara+westover+book+reviews&oq=Educated+%3A+a+memoir+tara+westover+book+reviews&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i21k1j33i160k1.1536781.1542777.0.1542896.28.21.0.0.0.0.576.3053.2-6j3j0j1.10.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..18.9.2472...0.0.EDDJMiUZZH0 "Educated : a memoir tara westover book reviews
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR||WP:RS)

Comment: article creator).  Westover's is young, got her PhD, and wrote a memoir.  The thing is, as the simplest  or a glance at the article wold show, the memoir is a hot bestseller that has produced copious coverage of her life (profiles and interviews in  leading media in Britain and America,) far more than enough to pass  and the book would fly past  which would carry her past .  I decided to start a bio page instead of a page on the author (as I would usually do with a notable book by a first-time author) because the book is a memoir, which made it seem to work best as a section on a bio page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:BASIC||WP:NBOOK||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: media coverage clearly meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Wikipedia goes by its own criteria not willynilliness:Wp:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if (1) It meets '''either''' the general notability guideline below, '''or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline''' e.g., wp:PROF, etc. listed in the box on the right." ... "On Wikipedia, |notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For '''people''', the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"https://web.archive.org/web/20110528053924/http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861683928/notable.html "Notable". Encarta. Archived from http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861683928/notability.html the original by Internet Archive. or "note"https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=notable American Heritage Dictionary definition Retrieved 17 January 2015 – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary."Wp:Basic: "People are presumed '''notable''' if they have received significant coverage in multiple published What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad. Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary sources that are Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable, intellectually independent of each other,Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject."A ton of secondary sources specifically about this author's upbringing, young-adult academic acomplishments, ravingly reviewed book on the list of #1 NYT Best Sellers for non-fic 2018. "The New York Times Non-Fiction Best Sellers of 2018
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)