Deletion of Sex, Drugs & Superheroes

Comment: Two published, along with essays and I think a webseries.  As previously discussed on the author page, I'll make a few observations in support of merge or retention of both articles here:  Regarding the Bent-Con pages bent-con.org, if you read the mission statement, policies and details regarding the group, they are not-for-profit and confirm Reddish as a noted guest.  Not just anyone can get featured status, panel discussions or be used in publicity, which Reddish does all three as evidenced by the Youtube documentary in which he's featured prominently.  The publicity in question advertises the convention with Reddish as a guest, not his work.  Regarding The Daily Journal, if you pay attention to the formatting of the article, it is classified by the newspaper as a "news expose'," not a lifestyle interview or people profile, both of which are other categories listed on the website and, I would assume, the print edition.  Nowhere does the author of the piece say he interviewed Reddish, and while he does offer quotes, he also makes assertions about Reddish's life that are unsourced, even within the sources discussed here.  He could have drawn from other interviews, or interviewed Reddish's friends, family, collaborators, etc. Another article at The Daily Journal mentions a speaking engagement and Reddish's two novels and cites nothing from the author personally.  Reddish's essay for ''The Advocate'' establishs him a writer for a major publication, and if you examine the full article which mentions his novel, it places it in a greater context as a work as noteworthy as major music, film and television entries.  It does not appear that Reddish personally had anything to do with his mention of his novel in ''The Advocate,'' nor did he write or coerce his name into Bent-Con programming or publicity. Upon reviewing Wikipedia's guidelines for notablility and sourching, the reviews from websites MyTakeOnTV.com and PinkisthenewBlog.com should be acceptable under Wiki guidlines since both Courtney K. and Trent Vanegas exert full editorial control over their content.  Wikipedia rules state that opinion blogs are unreliable regarding opinions of ''people'', but not their work.  Moreover, the previously discussed article at gay.net qualifies as  because, while it does interpolate original research in the form of an interview, the preceeding paragraph is a review of the novel ''not'' based on anything said in the interview itself.  Thus, the cited sources of The Daily Journal, MyTakeonTV.com, Bent-Con.org, PinkistheNewBlog.com, gay.net and The Advocate should all be permissable under Wiki guidelines because they are independent, edited sources providing significant coverage or attestation to the notability of Reddish and his work.  Also, having reviewed Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent, both The Daily Journal article and the Gay.net article also qualify as reliable sources on another level: ''Secondary sourced material is based on primary sourced material, and may include synthesis.''  Ergo, even if an interview appears as part of the article, if it is merged with original writing, and in this case, both articles are, it qualifies as .  In terms of notability, we have discussed significant coverage here, including independent and reliable sources that would suggest Reddish, his novel ''Sex, Drugs & Superheroes'' or come combined entry of the two should be included here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SECONDARY||WP: SECONDARY)

Comment: TokyoGirl79's detective work is compelling.  This is a non-notable book whose article was written by a sockmaster with a COI.  Even if it ''were'' notable, this would probably need to be rewritten from scratch, and I would support deletion per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Sources offered are a hodgepodge of  and  sources including interviews with and articles by the author (all obviously primary) and pure junk.  Completely fails to establish notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY||WP:QUESTIONABLE)

Comment: Despite the article's length, the book is actually fairly non-notable. I can't find any coverage in sources that would be considered reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I'll endorse deletion of the author's article as well. This is a pretty clear case of  when it comes down to it- this is an incredibly non-notable work
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipuffery (WP:PUFFERY)

Comment: Before dismissing a source, it might benefit all of us involved in this discussion if a user might detail the reasons why a specific outlet is ineligible for use as .  It could lead to a more informed and precise discussion of the matters at hand
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)