Deletion of Animals, Property, and the Law

Comment: per {{u|Notecardforfree}}; there are multiple independent  for the book, including the reviews in the Further reading section (and the source at the end of the Notes section). The lack of direct citation, except of the book itself, is an unrelated problem (but still a problem), and the claim to be "the first extensive jurisprudential treatment of animal rights", citing the foreword, isn't the basis of its notability:  is, which it clearly passes. &#8209;&#8209
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: The article cites independent reviews of the book in the ''The Washington Post'', the ''Houston Journal of International Law'', and ''The Federal Lawyer''. I did a google search and I found citations in https://books.google.com/books?id=HfZqspHsLugC&pg=PA131 this book and https://books.google.com/books?id=EyBec6_SlR0C&pg=PA135 this book, among others. Therefore, I think this book passes the first notability criterion of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)