Deletion of Starship Troupers

Comment: most SF works are reviewed in ''Locus'' and one or more of the pulps; that doesn't make them necessarily fit the standard set out in  of ''"The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary."''. ''LJ'' qualifies as a "work serving a general audience"; but not sure the others really do (except for trufen like myself). Heck, otherwise I'd argue that every book I reviewed for ''Dragon (magazine)|Dragon'' was thus made notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (:WP:BK)

Comment: Does not pass  along with lacking any independent sources. I've done a Google search and failed to find anything beyond entries on book databases
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: Note that a good deal of this article was removed by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Starship_Troupers&diff=315565097&oldid=315404749 this edit. I would agree that the plot summary was overly long, but  is quite clear that "Plot-only description of fictional works." are inappropriate, whereas "A concise plot summary is sometimes appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT)