Deletion of EFiction

Comment: I reviewed the interview at http://www.thekindlechronicles.com/ The Kindle Chronicles. The Kindle Chronicles page has a http://www.efictionmag.com/?ap_id=LenEdgerly personalized link to the eFiction website and is an affiliate of the magazine. The Kindle Chronicle interview falls under  more specifically, a conflict of interest because of its financial interest in eFiction. ALL the cited sources have questionable reliability (per  or  or ). Without any reliable third-party sources, the subject cannot claim notability (both under  as well as  which requires independent coverage "without incentive, promotion, or other influence"). If reliable third-party coverage can be found, the article may be able to establish notability, but as it stands now, I cannot see a reason to keep it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:QS||WP:QS||WP:SELFPUBLISH||WP:SOURCES||WP:GNG||WP:SPIP)

Comment: It comes down to the reliability clause in , and the sources in the article are either self-published or are interviews. That calls into question the editorial scrutiny of the interviews. If there were articles written about the magazine from a strictly third-party perspective, such as reviews of the site, that could tip the scale in my mind toward keeping the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I'm still not convinced notability has been established.  None of the sources on the article are unambiguously |reliable sources by Wikipedia's criteria.  Notability must be established by multiple in-depth references in reliable sources.  There's no hard-and-fast definition of reliable sources, and they can be online, in print, or on tv/radio, but there are various guidelines: Are they self-published (bad) or produced by a commercial non-vanity publisher (good)? Does the publisher edit and fact-check contributions before publication? Are contributions written by professional journalists/academics/people trained in writing factual content? Is the source publication itself notable i.e. does it have a Wikipedia article, or could a WP article be written? Has the source got a significant publishing history or did it start last week?  I've seen a lot of interest about e-publishing and self-published e-books in the mainstream press lately, so I don't believe the arguments that "the mainstream press doesn't cover e-books so of course there are no reliable sources", but even if that were true, we can't trust random people's blogs
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)