Deletion of Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America

Comment: as meets  with several reviews, including an extensive review in The Bark and a shorter but standard review in Library Journal. Questioning its lack of sustained coverage strikes me as rather goofy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: I'm not sure what went wrong with that  search, but I quickly turned up a number of in-depth reviews: by https://www.forewordreviews.com/reviews/redemption/ Foreword Reviews, the https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Readers-picks/2009/0623/redemption-the-myth-of-pet-overpopulation-and-the-no-kill-revolution-in-america Christian Science Monitor (whatever one might think about those guys), and the http://criticalanimalstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/JCAS-VII-Issue-1-2009.pdf Journal for Critical Animal Studies. That's not ''Times'' coverage but it's good enough. Nontrivial treatment embedded in other works, such as https://house.ethersense.com/~isaronline/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Mandatory_Spay_Neuter_Monograph.pdf this monograph, is even easier to come by; the book has made some waves. I mean, it wouldn't be a calamity if this was treated in the article on the author rather than in its own article, but the coverage and material for a standalone are actually there
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: as per User:Station1. Does not meet  under WP:NOTABILITY. A book is published, some reviews are written at that time, and that is the end of it. Just because something exists does not mean that it requires an article on Wikipedia
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SUSTAINED)