Deletion of Julie Hamill

Comment: With permission from Tigraan (as I had mentioned earlier I wouldn't like to !vote), with due respect to his nomination, and with due respect to the other !voters comments. All three !voters above have mentioned only GNG in their assessment criteria and do not seem to be considering  at all (the third refers simply to notability guideline, without clarifying). The nominator, by their own admission, has used a personal criteria and interpretation to assess whether the author and the book are notable or not. The BLP author, as mentioned above by me after adding multiple RS, may qualify on notability on subject-specific guidelines, specifically |AUTHOR #3, as the book is a well-known work and the criteria #3 appreciates such authors (one reason the wiklink is titled AUTHOR
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: neither book nor author have sufficient sourcing to pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I generally prefer !voting in Afds where I am not involved as an article contributor (purely my personal choice, as I feel I may not be able to comment neutrally in deletion discussions of any article where I have edited significantly). Therefore, if Tigraan is okay with it, I'll simply place my general views, clarifying that they should be read as neither a support or oppose. On the positive side for this author are the two extensive and very in-depth coverages of her career done by https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-426324351.html The Sunday Mail and http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/music/morrisseys-no1-fan-reveals-how-6303831#x0X46uxHwyTLZASG.97 Daily Record. These two should be enough to qualify her on BASIC. Beyond this,  mentions that an individual may be notable if ''"the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."'' Hamill has created a very well-known and well-covered book, and this alone again seems enough to qualify her as being notable. On the negative side, a few other coverage that I have found of her seem to be purely press releases (but then, I think that is expected during the book promotion stage). Notwithstanding my comments, I'll maintain my ambivalence to this article being kept or deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: I'm in agreement that she falls within the plain language of  #3, and I'm wary about efforts to overrule the notability that "likely" confers. If you want to change the policy that's def a conversation one could have (I myself might be sympathetic to the case for saying one book shouldn't be enough, say, or raising the bar for how widely reviewed it is), but taking it upon oneself to apply a different standard to individual cases before any policy change has happened seems quite at odds with , at risk of introducing , among other problems
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:NPOV||WP:SYSTEMICBIAS)