Deletion of The Clone Republic

Comment: per Amazon |notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I see Sci-Fi Network and Village Voice cited as sources; that's enough right there. In addition it's published by a major publisher (Berkley, for heaven's sake). Determinating the "fame" of the book requires violating  and is not criteria for determining whether a book deserves to have an article. In summary: non-trivial sources cited both for reviews and discussion of the work; major publisher; book has been released. Notability achieved
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Book reviews by reliable sources do exist, as per . Some examples: http://www.scifi.com/sfw/books/sfw12541.html Scifi Weekly, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-14050429_ITM University Wire, but it is at the very thin edge indeed, and reasonable people can certainly differ about whether it qualifies as significant coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: Does not meet the agreed criteria for notability for books. .  The fact that this article is almost as long as the book is strange.  There is also almost concensus, since this page has been proposed as a speedy before but does not meet the criteria.  As an alternative, it could be redirected to the authors page, and a 3 sentence (not 300!) summary included
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NB)

Comment: Notability never established delete per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NB)