Deletion of The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure

Comment: maybe merge a small stub of the info into the Amazon article. There are a lot of books published, and I'd say as a general rule a book that can't find an actual publisher is almost certainly not notable. The article actually contains not that much about the book itself, but it doesn't appear to be scholarly work or otherwise of value. The only reason to keep the article is the controversy. If the article ''is'' kept, it should definitely be renamed to something like ''The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure'' controversy. But what is there to say about the controversy, really? Not much. And , and we are an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid broadsheet, and notoriety is not the same notability.  Anything that needs to be said can be said in a couple of sentences in the Amazon.com article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I just split off the controversy section from the Amazon.com article to create a new article, Amazon.com controversies. If we end up merging this page, we could merge it there instead of to the main Amazon.com article. That way,  would not be as much of an issue
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP: UNDUE)

Comment: because |notability is not inherited and the book itself doesn't seem to be |notable independent of the controversy.  As we saw with rticles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination) (yes, it was really nominated 18 times--and only deleted on the last one!), merely being a controversial topic does not protect an article from being deleted (that article was subsequently discussed on DRV many times; it is currently a redirect).  Deletion is not automatically |censorship.  It may be appropriate to have a separate article ''on the controversy'' (hence the move option) but it is not appropriate to have an article ''on the book'' since the book is not notable ''independent of the Amazon controversy''.  On the other hand, the information in the article may be useful elsewhere and notability generally is not a reason to remove content
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:NB||WP:A||WP:FREE)

Comment: Amazon's removal may be the cause of its fame, but articles covering that incident certainly have added sufficient coverage of both the book's content and its author for this article to satisfy . __
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Passing news story per , not a notable book in its own right
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Completely fails otability (books). Per OTNEWS, we do not have an article about a book to record that there was a media fuss at a certain time. The incident (Amazon selling/withdrawing book) is not sufficiently notable (NOTNEWS) to warrant an article, so if the editors at Amazon.com feel it helpful, some material could be used there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to Amazon.com#Controversies. This book is only notable in relation to that incident. I don't see book reviews or reception coverage like we have in articles about other books. The section on the author seems to fall under #NEWS
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS exists because people often dash off to their computers to create articles in response to stories in the news without considering the overall notability. This appears to be an example of the phenomenon. I would be quite happy to see this information merged into Amazon.com or another article, but it fails  for a standalone article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)