Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Daniels
After the helpful explanation by Tokyogirl79 above, and adding the important caveat that while this author seems to have been relatively prolific and relatively popular in her field based on current online sources, she actually stopped publishing new material 13 years ago, I believe her notability under  needs to be inferred from the available evidence rather than dismissed for a lack of sources. If she was publishing her run of Harlequin pulps today, I've little doubt the weight of specialist new media romance coverage would see her through even if she never made it anywhere near the NYRB; as it is, what she's already got (despite having been most prolific in the previous century, and despite not having written a new book since 2003) is still borderline acceptable, which indicates a certain profile, and that in turn seems favourable if we speculatively compare it to "current" authors in the same sphere and the same publisher. Perhaps some of Tokyogirl79's information could be added to the article to provide context
— User:Fosse8, 13:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NAUTHOR (Wikipedia:Notability)