Deletion of The WASP Question

Comment: I'm a little late to the party, but here are some of my answers to the above question. First off, the existence of other articles that may or may not pass  has no weight upon this AfD. An article might exist that has fewer or no sources, but that just means that the article has yet to be sourced or brought up for AfD and deleted. When it comes to book summaries, the same rule applies. Just because one page has an overly elaborate description of the plot or contents of a book doesn't mean that it is necessarily in the encyclopedic or neutral format that an article should have. Of the two books mentioned above, both of them have issues with notability (ie, reliable sources) and one needs to be edited for content. A list of the book's chapters is almost never something that should be put on a page. A general synopsis of the book is usually more appropriate. I edited the synopsis on the page down to one paragraph that more briefly discusses the plot information. I also removed one of the sources, a link to a YouTube video of an interview with the author. The thing about YouTube is that we can only link to something if it's released by the person who owns the rights to the video. You could have the author uploading a CNN interview, yet that wouldn't be usable as a source since CNN owns the rights to the interview footage. There are ways to get around that, such as finding the information and putting in a reference that doesn't use the YT link. Now here's the other issue about YT videos: we can't always guarantee that the interview is actually notable enough to count towards notability. Sometimes people are interviewed on shows that don't pass notability guidelines or they are interviewed by people or organizations that they are personally involved with. For example, if Fraser worked for CNN and they interviewed him, that interview would be seen as a primary source. Don't worry if this feels frustrating to read- it's just as frustrating for the vast majority of us, trying to navigate through all of the red tape. Now this particular interview looks to have been through an Australian politician's radio show, but people could argue both ways on this. They could say that it's usable because the politician is notable, but others could argue that he isn't notable enough. I'd go through Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to ask if this type of interview is usable. Even if it is, we need multiple reliable sources to show notability. Very rarely will one source be enough to show notability for anything, be it person, place, or thing. I'm having some issues with finding sources, so I'm leaning towards redirecting this to the author's page
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)