Deletion of Where Troy Once Stood

Comment: The editors above are focusing on the ''quality'' of the book. The issue here is not quality but notability. We have proposed guidelines for the notability of books at . In order to be notable a book really needs to generate interest outside of its own field - yet this book generates only about 600 google hits http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Where+Troy+Once+Stood%22+-site:wikipedia.org+-site:answers.com&hl=en&lr very few citation from Google scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Where+Troy+Once+Stood%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search, is in only about 300 libraries out of 10,000+ in woldcat http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/22907688&referer=brief_results. The only review cited by the article is from Library Journal, a publication which reviews thousands of books a year with very limited regard for notability and is specifically disqualified from establishing notability per . There is no evidence so far that this book has been the subject of significant works in publications serving a general audience as required by 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK||WP:BK||WP:BK)

Comment: We should be arguing about the books |notability rather than the correctness or otherwise of it claims. It generates http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-08,GGLD:en&q=%22Where+Troy+Once+Stood%22 718 Google hits and all editions rank about 1,000,000 in sales on Amazon (the first edition is of course much lower than the new one). Does this qualify as notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAntiphus&diff=80261941&oldid=79128972 canvassing for people to comment here is, in my opinion, ''extremely'' bad form. And Andrew Dalby, please read  for the definition of "Meat puppet
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK)