Deletion of Weekend Special

Comment: There is no coverage about this book in reliable sources.  In particular, I can find no evidence of significant critical coverage such as book reviews.  Aside from that, the article is in part |original research as part of the referencing identifies the source as a direct interview with the author
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: not even close to meeting  (if the article's author is either related to - or close friends with - the book's author, there would also be a |conflict of interest, and while I cannot say definitively that there is COI, there is definitely the ''scent'' of one. The sad part is that if a couple of reviews or articles in |reliable sources can be/were found and included in the article, this entry could be saved... but originating editor is either ignoring or not understanding the advice that are given here and on his/her own talk page by the two other established editors who posted above. Gharr refers to the article's talk page as a "mission statement"; I call it (and his/her talk page) egregious violations of |Wikipedia's talk page guidelines of behavior. If the author wishes to fight for the sake of fighting without addressing the issues put above in the nomination and putting the article itself in compliance with inclusion guidelines, Wikipedians don't usually have the time to humour him/her; most of us don't even have the patience to play such games in the first place. Special:Contributions/147.70.242.54|147.70.242.54
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NB||WP:COI||WP:RS||WP:TPNO)