Deletion of The Oxford Virus

Comment: Your assumption is incorrect. The responsibility to ensure that the article meets criteria for inclusion rests with the author of the article and/or editors that wish to retain the article for whatever reason. Editors opposing deletion need to specifically show ''how'' the article meets the criteria, which can be found at . Editor(s) making recommendations to ''keep'' the article have failed to align their assertions with ''Wikipedia guidelines''. As such, these recommendations to keep the article are insufficient and essentially ineffective. You can find out more about the process of discussing an article nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD|here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: G12/Copyvio of http://www.amazon.co.uk/Oxford-Virus-Adam-Kolczynski/dp/095658800X Additionally, notability has not been established according to the criteria presented at  or . Does not appear to have received a literary award; is not the basis for film, other art form, event, or political or religious movement; does not appear to be the subject of educational studies. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK||WP:GNG)

Comment: Actually, notability is established according to policy and guidelines. An independent review does not establish notability. Neither does inclusion in an online database such as Fantastic Fiction. You may review the notability factors at  for clarification
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: While ''The Ealing Times'' and ''Russian London Courier'' would be considered reliable, the EuroCrime.co.uk website would ''not'' be considered reliable as a collection of self-published reviews by one individual, lacking oversight. That said, a search of the archives of these sources reveal ''NOTHING'' regarding this book or its author. Puzzling why these sources have been offered, while they do not support any of the claims made in the article. I am recommending deletion of the article due to the lack of notability according to criteria found at , as well as the copyright violation. This article is inappropriate in all regards
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOKS)

Comment: It is a non-notable |book without coverage in |reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK||WP:RS)