Deletion of Reasons to Vote for Democrats

Comment: passes . "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." The existing article and users above have shown that this clearly meets that standard
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BOOKCRIT)

Comment: Johnpacklambert argues "This is not a book".  That is , unless he can provide a RS for his statement.  This is very much a book, having received reviews, having an ISBN, and having reached best-seller status
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Nothing has changed since last keep - except for more coverage. The book clealry meets GNG with SIGCOV which is continuing. Furthermore the book passes (1) with several RSes covering the book in depth (arguably in a more verbose fashion than the book itself). Nom's oppinions on the literary merits of the book are irrelevant - what matters notability wise is coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: SportingFlyer is incorrect, there was impact:  This book produced a fad, a spate of copycat blank books with satirical titles like ''Reasons to Vote for Republicans.'' I just added a brief, sourced, section on the copycat books to the page.  There certainly was , more than enough to pass .  I remember at least one satirical review, set up like a regular book review - but blank
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NBOOK)

Comment: merge; article should be kept (my iVote to ''keep'' is above) for the same reasons that we keep any notable book: because it got an enormous amount of  over an extended period of time, including multiple, full book reviews in significant publication.  (c.f.: The Roger Kimball review in The Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/shooting-blanks/article/2007663 ''Shooting Blanks'': ''"this brief, but comprehensive, inquiry...  covers all the bases: There are chapters on Economics, Foreign Policy, Civil Rights, Education, Homeland Security, Energy, Jobs, Crime, Immigration, and (perhaps the weightiest section) Values. Knowles has covered the waterfront.... his extensive bibliography...  has done his homework: He has drawn on a wide and bipartisan range of works, from Saul Alinsky's classic handbook for community organizers, Rules for Radicals, to Peter Schweizer's critical investigation into the Clintons' finances in Clinton Cash—and many other books."'') Satire book inspiring full length satiric reviews from public intellectuals.   This is what notability for a book looks like
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)