Deletion of The Plot to Hack America

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: the nom's statements about the New York Journal of Books|NYJB is their personal opinion, can they please provide the policy/guideline that a book reviewer is not useable if they only review books that are not yet published and/or sent to them/requested of them (or does the nom think that all the okay reviews/ers purchase books from bookshop then review them, how on earth could this be proved)? based on no. 1 of , that makes no mention of this, a review from New York Journal of Books|NYJB appears ok
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: to Malcolm Nance. (1) There is an article on Malcolm Nance and we've established that this phrase is a useful search term for him, so outright deletion should be out of the question. (2) Usually we look to three solid reviews (not the brief blurbs from PW/Booklist/Kirkus) to justify keeping an article on a contemporary book. Is NY Journal of Books really the only review under discussion? I've excluded that source before simply because it doesn't have a pedigree—you can argue at RSN that it has been mentioned by other sources but it isn't even near the level of a review from the NYT, NY Review of Books, or other major magazine/newspaper... And even if there was to be a consensus that NY Journal of Books is somehow a peer of those publications, it would only be one review. So on one hand, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Journal_of_Books&type=revision&diff=785521848&oldid=742672294 bravo on its article expansion, but the RSN discussion isn't even close to a proxy discussion on this book's independent notability (also the expansion easily falls apart as a collection of author bios and unreliable sources). (3) Nance has written Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defeating ISIS|other notable books before (see Sage's comment for specific reviews). In comparison, this topic's article is based mostly on a C-SPAN primary source that should be used as a source in the author's own article, and the summary is source primarily to the book itself with the NY Journal of Books thrown in as a side-ref without specifying what the source even confirms. The Reception section is a pile of mentions from various publications, which do not together amount to reviews. The other interviews reveal more about Nance's career than they provide backdrop for the book. The author's article makes a good target for what can be salvaged from this article, but as of now, there is no indication that this book was itself the subject of |significant coverage in multiple |reliable, |independent sources. (|?) Happy to revisit if more coverage (esp. reviews) specific to the book is uncovered
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:IS||WP:42)

Comment: Meets  #1. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: per  1
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BOOKCRIT)