Deletion of Restoring the Lost Constitution

Comment: This article has been in existence since 2004. It is not some little stub article, either. If you don't like the way the article is written, then '''fix it'''. Lack of citations is not part of #REASON. Regarding , the standard is "all material added to articles must be ''attributable'' to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." You are arguing based on the fact that material is not ''attributed'' to reliable sources, but that is not the standard. Here's some material for you: http://old.nationalreview.com/books/ponnuru200406171542.asp, http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0501h.asp, http://mises.org/journals/jls/19_2/19_2_6.pdf, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/barnett1104.htm. Regarding |notability, I'll simply point out that a Google search for "Restoring the Lost Constitution" (in quotes) turns up over 28,000 results. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. It does not have a limit on how much information it can hold. What is the benefit of deleting information that people may actually want to read? On a personal note, in the past I have found this article to be a useful source of information
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL||WP:OR||WP:NOTE)

Comment: The entire 'theory'  section  is unsourced |original  research and/or |point of view, and should be deleted immediately. There are no  sources on  the page that  assert notability for the book even if it is an award winner. Verifiability, not truth, is the core policy  of Wikipedia
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:POV)