Deletion of The Royal Book of Lists

Comment: No in-depth reviews or sources. Does not meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BKCRIT)

Comment: The most charitable outcome would be , but nobody other than the author seems to have any interest in it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: insufficient wikipedia:RS|sources, limited reviews, and author also lacks the criteria of  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matthew_Richardson_(author
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: The https://www.newspapers.com/clip/76967718/the-royal-book-of-lists-by-matt/Victoria Times Colonist reference is not very long, I'm not sure I would call it substantial as it is one of several reviews in an article. I feel that the review is trivial, so #1 of  is not met.  Is the Guelph Mercury review longer?  None of the other criteria at  are met
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK||WP:NBOOK)