Deletion of Myopia Myth

Comment: I'm a little confused; is this article supposed to be about the book, or about the theory proposed by it?  Clearly it is hard to have an article about the former without at least going into some depth about the latter, but the article as it stands enters into arguments about the validity of the content of the book using references that are not about the book, but rather about aspects of the theory that is espoused by the book.  This seems to me to be a clear case of |original synthesis.  That said, I believe a valid article could be written about the book, and that this article with the original synthesis removed would be a good base for that article.  There are sources that have been written in direct response to the book in question, including some scholarly articles (e.g. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1041798&pageindex=1#page) that directly and explicity refute claims made by this book.  It seems, also, that it would be reasonable to have pages about the theory that myopia may be caused environmentally (which there is plenty of scholarly discussion of) or that pinhole glasses are useful for treating myopia (also widely discussed).  The only problem with this article as it stands is that it brings all of these concepts together, in a single article, which is not appropriate because of the synthesis issues
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: Being swamped with unencyclopedic content is not a reason for deletion, but the failure of the book to attract significant coverage from reliable sources is (). Mere passing mentions do not provide the coverage necessary before we can write a good article on the topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: to Myopia as per Colonel Warden and Junsun there are many numerous useful citations here, meeting 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)