Deletion of Tucker Reed

Comment: Having read all of the foregoing and looked into the sourcing, I'm convinced that she fails , , and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:BK||WP:GNG)

Comment: To The Amber House Trilogy, assuming it is not also deleted. The subject has not received wide-enough individual coverage, in my opinion, to merit inclusion under , her individual work does not meet , and she is not a notable activist. The subject's basic claim to notability is that she was allegedly assaulted, and wrote about it on her blog. That's it. This article is also essentially a |soapbox for the author(s) - the idea being (I feel) that an article on Wikipedia will give wider coverage to the allegations made by the subject, which by the way were serious and gross violations of  as seen from any angle. I would have no problem !voting differently on this if there was significant, real coverage that didn't include blogs and her own publishers, but I see this as a worrying BLP concern with no redeeming qualities whatsoever that would otherwise prompt me to recommend this be kept and watched until the end of time to prevent the alleged assault perpetrator from being named. I have no opinion on whether the allegations are true or not, and I don't have a problem with anyone seeking justice any way they can, but Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we don't need this type of thing. Maybe |later
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:NBOOKS||WP:SOAP||WP:BLP||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Every book out of the major houses gets a Publishers Weekly and a Kirkus review.  These are the default reviews, and therefore don't mean anything, even if they are positive.  Have a look at --coverage must be SIGNIFICANT.  Her publisher's website also doesn't count, because it is  and  and .  In other words, it is a self-published primary source that is meant as advertising.  So what are we looking for here on Wikipedia?  Answer this for us:  Where are the ''secondary-source'' feature stories about Tucker Reed?  Not BLOGS that anyone can post, but FEATURE STORIES.  Salon?  New York Times?  Washington Post?  They just don't exist for this writer.  She doesn't meet  or , and so she just isn't notable ''per Wikipedia's guidelines''.  Now, let me try to be a little more helpful here.  Let's say this rape controversy actually goes viral, AND the New York Times does a story ABOUT Tucker Reed--not just mentioning her, but actually ABOUT her.  Now you've got one source.  ONE.  And one won't be enough, so you'd better get a lot more.  I hope this clarifies matters for you.  Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything (WP:42||WP:PRIMARY||WP:SPS||WP:ADVERT||WP:42||WP:GNG)