Deletion of Ancient History (novel)

Comment: while I could find a couple of bits and pieces, this one doesn't look to have been as widely considered as Women and Men (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women and Men). There is a little bit in http://books.google.com.au/books?ei=UbdWUIOvBumeiAf5loG4Bg&id=3Wq1AAAAIAAJ&dq this book, http://books.google.com.au/books?id=vT48EdYFl1YC&dq this book and http://books.google.com.au/books?ei=UbdWUIOvBumeiAf5loG4Bg&id=j44fAQAAIAAJ&dq this book. There is also a Kirkus Reviews entry https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/joseph-mcelroy-6/ancient-history-a-paraphase/ here - not sure whether this is sufficient (Kirkus is included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/K2|list of journals cited by WP but I can't find a definitive statement about its reliability as a source). I did find a few other blog-style reviews (http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/criticalecologies/centrifugal like this) but not a whole lot else. There might be more but I could only find passing mentions beyond that. Am a bit on then fence but am generally in favour of ''Keep'', so that's what I'll put down. That said, there are no sources currently listed for the article so that would have to be fixed - the original author has completely failed to meet the |burden of proof, despite claiming to be a long-term IP editor who has only recently joined WP. The attitude of that editor toward
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:BURDEN)

Comment: I would remind you to |assume good faith. Your assumption here is not accurate in reflecting the facts. Another note, the AFD did not "crash and burn", but served as intended to discuss the merits of the article in order to establish notability. This was successfully done in accordance with the established process. Certainly not a game. Time to check yourself my friend
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)