Deletion of The Franklin Coverup

Comment: For non-notability , the fact that the whole mess is covered in other articles, and that, frankly, as Tbetty said, it reads like someone's personal crusade -- |--and we ain't no soapbox
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: see #Criteria, the book is notable in its own right and satisfies at least a few of these criteria, having been reviewed by multiple noteworthy sources and being developed into a motion picture documentary that was then banned by special interest groups
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: per nomination, fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: as nominated. Fails all points of . The worst part is that the book is written using an "'''''alleged''' child sexual abuse ring organized for members of the political and financial elites of the United States''". There are real people and families out there who are affected by this sort of stuff (believe it or not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: as the work fails .  The Franklin Credit Union and Senator John DeCamp's sexual abuse allegations are just not notable today.  Why is a throughly discredited set of allegations and the persons involved suddenly the "hot topic" in blogdom and notable-enough to warrant 6 separate articles?  It's not.  Nobody in the mainstream press is still talking about this issue.  That makes the subject non-notable in an encyclopedia that requires reference to reliable secondary sources, not blogs.  Where are the references to this book in |reputable sources?  This story is dead, dead, dead, and has been since 1989
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK||WP:RS)