Deletion of Jess C Scott (2nd nomination)

Comment: There is nothing in the article that show that the subject meets  in any way. The supposed "third-party coverage" is all either mere mentions of the subject, simple quotes by the subject, or dead links. Oddly, I don't find a single review of her works published in a reliable source. I also don't find where any of her works have been listed on any sales charts, of have even been published by a regular publishing house. As a whole, the article appears to be more promotional than encyclopedic. Regarding the thinly-veiled accusations of some sort of conspiracy, I suggest that editor to visit |Other Stuff Exists. --&#124
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:OTHER)

Comment: Tough case, right on the line. Fundamentally I believe the author is probably notable due to the number of works published and number of readers, as http://www.librarything.com/author/scottjessc seen here at LibraryThing. However meeting the technical hurdle of  is a challenge that Wikipedia sets for inclusion. It's arbitrary, but so is the height limit to get on the roller-coaster. So keeping GNG in mind, looking through the refs I see one that counts for a reliable source that discusses the subject in-depth, and that is the ''Word Riot'' interview. The rest are articles ''by'' Jess Scott (not ''about'' Jess Scott), which can't be used for GNG purposes. Or they are just brief mentions, a single sentence quote, or notice of appearance somewhere, which are not considered for GNG purposes. Typically what is needed for authors to meet GNG are two types of sources: interviews that talk about the author, and book reviews (in reliable sources). Are there any book reviews in Publishers Weekly
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: doesn't pass , appears to be promotional
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)