Deletion of In the Sea of Sterile Mountains: The Chinese in British Columbia

Comment: This is kind of tricky, but I'd say the reviews are independent of the book as defined by  (have a look at the footnotes, they're informative), especially since they're academic, and there are also a fair number of them which increases the likelihood of notability.  Someone who was "involved with the book" sounds like it would have been someone involved in the publishing rather than someone who just happened to write an original interpretation of it.  Also, the subtitle should be removed from the title per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK||WP:SUBTITLE)

Comment: Clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Book reviews from academic journals are generally considered reliable and independent. The fact that these reviews use the book as referencing only means they are |secondary sources, which is exactly what we need.--Special:Contributions/114.81.255.40|114.81.255.40
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SECONDARY)

Comment: The book clearly meets  - that requires multiple reliable and independent sources. There are two academic book reviews from the 1970s and the University of Alberta historiography document from the 2000s. If it meets GNG it has notability period
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as it passes , per the above comments
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: This book meets  as it has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself (as
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)