Deletion of Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons

Comment: I vote for deletion per  and . The article is very short and already covered on the author's page. I also fail to see the relevance of such pro-paedophilia material
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE||WP:OVERLAP)

Comment: The book has been reviewed in the academic journals http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/articles/MJOCarrollReview.pdf ''Archives of Sexual Behavior'' and https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1363460711422322a ''Sexualities'', which are reliable sources and satisfy 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: per  - the subject is sufficiently covered at Tom O'Carroll. I say delete the present article because the previous versions contained puffery put there by the article's creator, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PeioR PeioR, indeffed by ArbCom in 2014, and who near exclusively edited pedophilia articles (and much of whose work has since been deleted). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeioR
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE)