Deletion of A Cincinnati Private Eye Protecting Princess Di: A Fascinating Footnote In History

Comment: for lack of notability. As we've mentioned above, we're talking about the book itself, not the individual or the incident - and, on that score, I can't find any material talking about the book itself. That said, |Usual caveats apply; it's a new book, after all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Usual caveats (WP:USUAL)

Comment: The ''event'' is notable but that's irrelevant. This book is too new to be a notable as a book. Maybe in a few months the article may be worth re-creating, but |Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we shouldn't keep the article just based on an expectation of future notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: With zero Google News hits for the title, I suspect that it will be difficult to establish notability for this book under . As I stated above, the notability of the underlying events is irrelevant here, just the notability of the book
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)