Deletion of America's Original Sin

Comment: per . I found three two reviews: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/religion/article/68969-jim-wallis-on-slavery-racism-and-america-s-original-sin.html, https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/fora97&div=7&g_sent=1&casa_token=7dla7LMcR2QAAAAA:6d34KvgtWp7geUGoV9EdCslG5W5CeS2OMt9u1yzhTSgDOcTDFzL79V9ghtsOfp4KfGTdZFdp7IQ&collection=journals, https://pillars.taylor.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1148&context=acsd_growth
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: per . Well-known book
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: Not sure what's wrong with Publisher's Weekly.  Just because it's a positive review doesn't mean it's unusable.  I can't access Aleatory Pondering's second source, but the third one looks good.  Reviewed by the American Professional Chaplains https://www.professionalchaplains.org/content.asp?pl=463&sl=104&contentid=827 here, although I'm not 100% for sure about that source.  It looks like it passes , albeit just barely
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: exceeds  with numerous |reviews, some of which have been added to the article, looks like another case of |not digging around for sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK||WP:RS||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: The reviews and coverage that have been found during this AFD and added to the article allow it to pass .  I also agree that the PW article looks to be a perfectly valid source
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)