Deletion of The Lucifer Principle

Comment: The author being notable is not sufficient. , Criteria -> point 5; Very few authors pass that test and get to rest on their laurels
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: I say weak because I'm not completely convinced the article passes  as yet. But it will pass once cleaned up, and as has been pointed out sufficient time hasn't been given before AfD commenced. I've also thought that the book might not need its own page as such and just having a reference to it at the Bloom article might be sufficient? I also feel that the nominators rational of the article being non-encyclopedic was not valid
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: Sources currently present in the article demonstrate notability of the book, even if they're biased towards the contraversy. Plus a wrist-slap to the nominator for bring this to AfD two minutes after the article was created, while edits were still being made, in direct violation of |policy and |guidelines. Show good faith and let the editors do the work before wiping it off the servers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:EP||WP:AFD)