== The harm of articles == 

 According to my logic, every article has cost, and what we're buying with that cost is maintaining or increasing article quality.  The set of books that meet our notability guidelines is huge, but still small enough that the community is willing to tolerate low-quality articles in hopes that they will be improved sooner rather than later.  If you expand the pool of potential articles to any published book, we're going to be inundated with low-quality articles, most of which won't ever be improved (not the least because, in the absence of reliable sources, we have nothing to say about them other than the fact that they exist).   

 If you want to take responsibility for all aspects of an article, from polishing the prose to making sure every WP:MOS-mandated em-dash is in the right place, and you do this before you put the article in to mainspace, then in my experience you'll be given quite a bit more leeway (especially in non-controversial areas).   

 There's one more reason the "does no harm" argument is annoying.  In the time it's taken for us to have this colloquy, you could have gone out and found a few of the reviews that I found.  "Does no harm" absolves you from having to improve the article.  If you want to !vote to keep an article, you'll be much better served by improving the article to the point where it's obvious that the article should be kept. 

 Best,