Deletion of Gini Graham Scott

Comment: Fails rof with a GS h index of 8. Can this BLP pass  despite spammy nature of the article? I think not as the media references are so trivial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:GNG)

Comment: Satisfies 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Satisfies  as her books are the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", e.g. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0y4zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fAgGAAAAIBAJ&pg=2298,8958423&dq=gini+graham+scott&hl=enhttp://billingsgazette.com/news/local/article_03d9e467-4dcc-5119-b890-8bd01dd724ee.htmlhttp://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6JRIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rAkNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3975,5741495&dq=gini+graham+scott&hl=enhttp://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=DSNB&d_place=DSNB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F3644A02FF5DAFF&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: This is a tough call.  Some of her works have been published by major publishers.  Yet the uthor guideline requires that her work be the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (that is the most germane qualification of several listed in uthor ) - and I don't think her works quite rise to that level.  On the other hand, her name is mentioned in passing by several major sources including CNN, although few (none?) actually devote a full review to her individually.  This could go either way
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:A)