Deletion of Rebecca Brown (missionary)

Comment: Rebecca Brown is waay known in protestant community. She's widely known in many countries for her Spiritual Warfare books. At http://www.amazon.com/Came-Set-The-Captives-Free/dp/0883683237 Amazon.com she's tagged as #1 Top Seller in Satanism and Demonology subject and have more than 400 customers reviews and this is just one of her books. At http://www.skoob.com.br/autor/lista/ Skoob, a great social network for book readers, Rebecca Brown only retrieves Rebecca Brown (missionary) books, and no Rebecca Brown (author) books, which at least show that Rebecca (missionary) has more notability than the other Rebecca (author) (which has enough notability to have an article). Also I wonder why Jac16888 wants so much and puts so much effort to have this article deleted. His actions should be assessed as  he is hindering growth and community development, flagging many articles to be deleted under "no notability" excuse. Also, according to : ''For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort''. So, even if this article had unclear notability, (which is not the case as Jac16888 not knowing the author does not indicate that she has not notabilit) tagging it for deletation should be a last resort
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FAILN)

Comment: I had initially mistaken her for Rebecca Brown (author), but then realized the mistake and corrected that. A search for the books attributed to this specific brown does not bring up anything to show that she would pass notability guidelines. The problem here is that she's ultimately a  author and while it's not impossible for a fringe author to gain notability, it does make it a lot harder for her to gain coverage in places that Wikipedia would consider reliable. Most of the places Brown would gain coverage would be considered fringe websites with little to no editorial oversight that would make them usable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Now addressing the topic of reviews, some reviews are usable to show notability but they would have to be reviews in outlets that Wikipedia considers reliable like the Chicago Tribune. Reviews in social media outlets like Goodreads or Skoob will not count since anyone can write a review on that site and at best it only indicates popularity, which can make it more likely that there will be coverage but is not a guarantee that it will be out there. () It also doesn't help that the original version of the article contained a  violation by mentioning Brown's malpractice problems without backing it up with a RS or showing where it should be in the article. If there were sources out there that would pass  then I'd argue for a keep, but they just don't seem to exist in this instance, which is pretty common when you have AfDs for authors that don't write mainstream fare. It's a shame, but the standards for author notability on Wikipedia is very, very strict. There is a move to try to get bestseller lists recognized as a standard for author notability, but that would apply to bestseller lists like the New York Times' Bestseller List. The problem with merchant sites like Amazon is that it's already been shown that ranking numbers on merchant sites can be manipulated and that it's also fairly easy to get a top spot when the categories get increasingly more specific. I'm sorry, but Brown just doesn't pass notability guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:ITSPOPULAR||WP:BLP||WP:RS)

Comment: I'm protestant, and I've never heard of her or her books.  There are no |reliable sources such as reviews in the ''Times book Review'' or even ecclesiastical papers. The only reason I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt is her social media presence, but even that can be manipulated
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)