Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tucker Reed
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
— User:Qworty, 22:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:42||WP:PRIMARY||WP:SPS||WP:ADVERT||WP:42||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything)