Deletion of Tom Kratman

Comment: I agree that the Sad Puppies debacle is covered by , and does not establish notability. I've been trying to see whether it's possible to get him over the  bar on the strength of criterion 3 - a well known body of work that has been subject of multiple independent reviews. I'm struggling - the best I've found is https://www.publishersweekly.com/9781416573838 this (plus a few other reviews of his books linked to from there) in Publishers Weekly, and https://sanfranciscobookreview.com/product/come-and-take-them/ this in San Francisco Book Review. I'm not sure either of these work though. The Publishers Weekly reviews are very short, more of a synopsis than a review, and they don't have a reviewers name attached to them - I think they churn out one of these for basically every book that gets published - I don't see how that establishes notability. The SFBR review is slightly more substantial, and has a name - but I don't think it's a staff reviewer, as far as I can work out this is a volunteer contributor (they have a link saying 'Become a reviewer'), so this is essentially . Would like to know what others think before !voting though. Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NAUTHOR||WP:UGC)

Comment: You are spot-on about PW. Those synopses are  coverage. San Francisco Book Review solicits "sponsored reviews" from authors and offers SEO services to authors - and it's mission is specifically to provide a high volume of reviews, so I would not consider them a reliable source for ensuring  notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: As much as I like File 770, and Mike Glyer, it's not a 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Does not meet any wiki-notability standard, plain and simple. Even if we treated File 770 as a |reliable source, a move I would find extremely dubious, it wouldn't constitute enough in-depth coverage of Kratman himself to qualify. And there just isn't enough of anything else to clear the bar for 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: This is a  issue if I've ever seen one. A non-notable author managed to get their name on a slate produced by notable racist Vox Day for the Hugo Awards and that slate, including Kratman, led to a broad kerfuffle as described at Sad Puppies. However aside from involvement in a notable attempt to game a fan award, Kratman is a nobody of no significance within Science Fiction
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: As per criterion 3 of . The http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/kratman_tom Science Fiction Encyclopedia entry plus the reviews collected by Haukur
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)